Judge orders USCIS to restore 21-day notice for child asylum interviews

U.S. District Judge Brendan A. Hurson ordered the government on Oct. 30, 2026, to restore at least 21 days’ written notice for asylum interviews involving unaccompanied children and to reinstate more flexible rules for rescheduling. The temporary order stays two policies used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); it does not decide the lawsuit’s ultimate claims.

The order was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. It grants a temporary restraining order and a stay under section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, directing the government to return to procedures that give children and their counsel more time to prepare for interviews.

What the 21-day requirement means i

The order requires written notice to be generated at least 21 days before an interview and promptly sent to the child and the child’s counsel. That replaces the policy at issue in the case, which allowed less than 21 days’ notice.

Does the order guarantee 21 days between receiving the notice and the interview? Its stated timing requirement applies to when the notice is generated: at least 21 days before the interview. It separately says the notice must be sent promptly; it does not set a second, minimum interval measured from receipt.

The plaintiffs alleged that some children had received only a few days’ notice, including instances of less than 24 hours. They argued that short notice made it harder for their organizations to represent the children. Those statements were allegations in the case, not a measure of how often such notice occurred.

Rescheduling and the limits of the order i

The order also stays a policy requiring “exceptional circumstances” to reschedule an interview. It directs the government to reinstate the earlier approach: one rescheduling as a matter of course and a further one for good cause. In considering a request, officials must weigh counsel’s availability and scheduling conflicts, the time needed to gather and submit evidence and prepare the child, whether the child can attend, and whether the child or counsel received inadequate notice.

The case was brought by six legal-services organizations: The Door; Amica Center for Immigrant Rights; Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project; Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project; Immigrant Defenders Law Center; and Jewish Family and Community Services Pittsburgh. The government argued that the organizations lacked standing, that their claimed harms were speculative, and that the requested order would interfere with USCIS’s operational judgment.

Hurson found that the plaintiffs had standing, faced irreparable harm and were likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act claims. Those are preliminary findings supporting temporary relief, not a final decision on the merits.

The order also does not grant temporary relief against a separate policy concerning deadlines for completing detained children’s removal cases. It states that the plaintiffs’ motion did not ask the court to restrain that policy.

The government was required to file a report describing its compliance steps within 48 hours of the order. The order states that the temporary relief expires at noon on Nov. 13, 2026, unless the court orders otherwise.