Fact check: Can ICE deport legal immigrants with pending green card applications?

Executive Summary

Can Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deport legal immigrants who have pending green card applications? The sources supplied show yes, in certain circumstances: lawful permanent residents and noncitizen visa holders can be placed in removal proceedings and deported when the government establishes disqualifying conduct such as criminal convictions, fraud, or falling out of status, while having a pending application may sometimes delay or complicate removal but is not an absolute bar to deportation ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. The reporting also documents contested enforcement practices and specific cases that illustrate how the law operates in practice and where administrative discretion and procedural protections become decisive ^{[1] [3]}.

1. Legal ground rules: What the law lets ICE do and when it can act

Federal immigration law allows ICE to initiate removal proceedings against noncitizens, including green card holders and visa holders, when statutory disqualifiers apply. The supplied analyses repeatedly identify criminal convictions, fraud in obtaining immigration benefits, and falling out of lawful status as principal triggers for deportation ^{[1] [2]}. Sources emphasize that the government must produce evidence to sustain removal charges and that the removal process can be lengthy and procedurally complex, meaning arrest and detention do not automatically translate to immediate deportation. This legal framework leaves room for both enforcement and defense: ICE has statutory authority to pursue removal, while respondents can contest charges, seek relief, or assert pending adjustment of status or other protections before an immigration judge ^{[3] [6]}.

2. The protective power — and limits — of a pending green card application

Several sources point out that a pending adjustment-of-status application can affect the timing and disposition of deportation, but it is not an absolute shield. One analysis notes that having a pending application “may provide protection from deportation” in some administrative contexts, suggesting that it can complicate the government’s ability to remove an individual immediately ^{[4] [5]}. However, other materials underscore that pending status does not immunize someone who has committed deportable offenses or who obtained status through fraud. The practical significance of a pending application therefore depends on the specific grounds ICE asserts, whether expedited removal procedures apply, and whether a court or USCIS grants interim relief or adjudicates the pending application in a respondent’s favor ^{[7] [3]}.

3. How enforcement practice differs from textbook law: recent examples and enforcement priorities

Reporting in the packet highlights instances where the government has targeted lawful permanent residents and visa holders without criminal convictions, raising questions about enforcement priorities and interpretation of deportability grounds. The cited case of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder detained under a Cold War–era statute cited by authorities, illustrates how enforcement decisions can reach lawful residents and produce high-profile litigation ^{[2] [3]}. These examples show that beyond statutory language, administrative discretion and policy choices—including prioritization of cases and the use of expedited mechanisms—shape outcomes. The materials indicate debate among immigration experts about whether recent enforcement reflects lawful application of statutes or aggressive policy shifts.

4. Procedural avenues and relief that can keep someone from removal

Multiple sources describe administrative and judicial procedures that noncitizens can invoke once in proceedings. Cancellation of removal, asylum, T nonimmigrant status for trafficking victims, and other forms of relief may be available, and immigration court procedures require parties to submit biometrics and follow updated filing rules ^{[6] [8] [9]}. These mechanisms mean that even when ICE initiates removal, respondents with pending green card applications may still obtain relief or adjustments depending on eligibility, documentation, and the adjudicator’s findings. The documents also stress that some expedited removal categories aim to exclude certain pending applicants (notably asylum seekers and adjustment applicants) from summary removal, while other administrative tracks may still place applicants into full removal proceedings ^[7].

5. Competing narratives and what to watch next

The analyses present two competing emphases: one emphasizing statutory criteria and procedural protections against wrongful deportation, and another highlighting reports of aggressive enforcement reaching legal residents without convictions ^{[1] [3] [4]}. These different framings reflect distinct institutional perspectives—legal summaries focusing on formal burdens of proof and remedy eligibility, and journalistic accounts documenting on-the-ground enforcement patterns and litigation. Observers should watch how courts resolve disputes over statutory interpretation, how immigration agencies apply expedited-removal authorities, and whether administrative guidance shifts enforcement priorities, because those developments will determine whether pending green card applicants increasingly find themselves at risk despite formal protections ^{[2] [5] [6]}.