Federal immigration agents have detained at least 12 Hong Kong residents covered by a presidential deportation deferral, prompting legal challenges as the Trump administration signals that the temporary protections could expire in February without renewal.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has detained at least a dozen Hong Kong residents who were granted temporary protection from deportation under former President Joe Biden, triggering a legal dispute over whether the Trump administration can hold individuals whose removal from the United States has been formally deferred until February 2027.
The detentions, which began in June, have occurred at American airports and involved Hong Kong residents covered by a presidential immigration directive intended to protect people facing potential political persecution following Beijing’s crackdown on the territory’s pro-democracy movement. Attorneys representing the detainees say federal agents pressured some individuals to agree to leave the country voluntarily despite existing protections against deportation.
According to an investigation published by Politico on Oct. 10, immigration officers detained at least 12 Hong Kong residents over several months, with some remaining in custody for as long as two months before immigration judges ordered their release.
One individual detained at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport in July described being pressured to sign paperwork agreeing to leave the United States. The person recalled agents warning that continued detention would follow if the documents were not signed.
“If you don’t sign this, you’re going to prison for months,” the detainee recalled being told.
Although all 12 individuals whose cases were reviewed by Politico were eventually released following immigration court rulings, their freedom remains restricted. The former detainees are required to wear electronic ankle monitors and face limitations on traveling outside their immediate geographic areas.
The cases have raised questions about the administration’s interpretation of Deferred Enforced Departure, or DED, a presidential designation that temporarily prevents the removal of certain foreign nationals for humanitarian or foreign policy reasons.
Unlike asylum, permanent residency or other established immigration classifications, DED does not independently confer lawful immigration status. Instead, it operates through the president’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs, allowing designated individuals to remain temporarily in the United States without being deported.
That distinction has become central to the government’s defense of the arrests.
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, maintains that individuals covered by the designation can still be placed in immigration proceedings even though their actual deportation has been deferred.
In a statement to Politico, DHS said it is “not precluded from placing aliens with such temporary administrative designation into removal proceedings.”
Government attorneys have also argued in federal court that “DED is not a status,” asserting that the protection does not eliminate the department’s broader authority to enforce immigration laws.
The administration’s position has generated controversy because a federal notice issued by the same department during Trump’s presidency expressly recognizes that individuals covered by DED cannot be removed during the designated protection period.
The April 4, 2025, Federal Register notice, issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, explains that the designation is a presidential administrative decision rather than a formal immigration classification. Nevertheless, the notice states that protected individuals “are not subject to removal from the United States.”
The document confirms that qualifying Hong Kong residents are entitled to deferred removal and associated employment authorization through Feb. 5, 2027, subject to the conditions established by the presidential directive.
Immigration attorneys contend that the administration is exploiting the difference between protection from actual deportation and the absence of a formal immigration status to justify detention.
Samuel Bickett, an attorney representing several Hong Kong exiles, described the government’s position as internally contradictory, arguing that federal authorities are attempting to pursue removal proceedings against individuals they currently cannot deport.
Bickett summarized the position as “he’s not removable, but he’s removable,” referring to the possibility that ICE could keep people in detention while waiting for the protection period to expire.
Under that interpretation, federal authorities could initiate removal proceedings and hold individuals even though the presidential directive prevents their deportation before February 2027. Attorneys warn that such a practice could leave detainees facing prolonged confinement unless immigration courts intervene.
The legal dispute has also drawn criticism from former American diplomats who worked extensively on Hong Kong affairs.
Hanscom Smith, who served as the United States consul general in Hong Kong during both Trump’s first administration and Biden’s presidency, rejected the suggestion that the designation leaves protected residents without a legitimate basis for remaining in the country.
“If you’re here on DED, you’re here legally,” Smith told Politico.
His remarks reflect concerns among former officials and immigration advocates that detaining Hong Kong residents covered by the presidential directive undermines the assurances Washington previously offered to people seeking protection from political repression.
The current policy traces back to August 2021, when Biden issued the first presidential memorandum granting Deferred Enforced Departure to eligible Hong Kong residents already living in the United States.
The original White House directive issued Aug. 5, 2021 established an initial 18-month protection period, preventing the deportation of certain Hong Kong residents and directing federal agencies to provide eligible individuals with employment authorization.
Biden justified the decision by citing China’s increasing restrictions on political rights and civil liberties in Hong Kong following the implementation of a sweeping national security law in 2020.
That legislation, imposed by Beijing following months of pro-democracy demonstrations, gave Chinese and Hong Kong authorities expanded powers to prosecute activities classified as secession, subversion, terrorism or collusion with foreign forces.
Critics of the law argued that its broad definitions enabled authorities to criminalize political opposition, restrict independent journalism and dismantle institutions associated with Hong Kong’s democratic movement.
Beijing defended the legislation as necessary to restore stability following widespread unrest, maintaining that the measures targeted threats to national security rather than legitimate political activity.
The United States and several other Western governments challenged that explanation, accusing Chinese authorities of undermining the political freedoms promised to Hong Kong when Britain returned the territory to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.
Under the arrangement governing the handover, Hong Kong was supposed to retain a high degree of autonomy and maintain many of its existing civil liberties under the principle of “one country, two systems.”
The Biden administration cited the erosion of those protections as grounds for allowing eligible Hong Kong residents to remain in the United States temporarily.
The initial deportation deferral was subsequently extended in 2023 before Biden issued another directive shortly before leaving office in January 2025.
His Jan. 15, 2025, presidential memorandum expanded eligibility to qualifying Hong Kong residents who had been continuously present in the United States since that date and extended the program through Feb. 5, 2027.
The memorandum cited continuing political repression, including the arrests of at least 200 opposition figures under Beijing’s national security legislation.
Biden also expressed concern about prosecutions involving democratic activists, journalists and other individuals accused of challenging Chinese government authority.
The extension was intended to provide an additional period of protection while the political situation in Hong Kong remained uncertain.
The subsequent Trump administration implemented the employment authorization provisions through the April 2025 Federal Register notice, confirming that eligible residents could continue working legally in the United States during the protection period.
Under those rules, individuals with qualifying employment authorization documents bearing expiration dates in 2023 or 2025 received automatic extensions through Feb. 5, 2027, provided they continued to meet the program’s requirements.
The notice also established procedures for eligible residents to apply for employment authorization and obtain travel permission.
However, the designation does not provide an unrestricted right to enter and leave the United States. Hong Kong residents who travel abroad generally must obtain advance authorization to preserve their eligibility, and returning to Hong Kong or mainland China can disqualify an individual from the protection.
The program also excludes certain individuals based on criminal convictions, national security considerations, immigration-related grounds of inadmissibility and other restrictions established by the presidential memorandum.
Those limitations are relevant to the current detentions because DED does not guarantee protection to every Hong Kong resident in the United States. Eligibility depends on an individual’s circumstances and compliance with the conditions attached to the directive.
Politico’s reporting, however, focused on individuals whose attorneys maintained that they were covered by the protection and should not have faced detention or pressure to leave the country.
In each of the 12 cases examined, immigration judges ultimately ordered the detainees released, although the individuals remained subject to electronic monitoring and travel restrictions.
Their periods of detention ranged from approximately 10 days to two months, according to the accounts provided to Politico.
The rulings have not resolved the broader legal disagreement between immigration authorities and attorneys representing Hong Kong residents.
DHS continues to maintain that the absence of a formal immigration status permits the government to begin removal proceedings, while advocates argue that prolonged detention of individuals who cannot currently be deported raises serious legal and due process concerns.
The dispute has become increasingly urgent because the existing presidential protection is scheduled to expire in less than four months.
Absent another presidential extension or a change in immigration status, qualifying Hong Kong residents who currently depend on DED could lose both their protection against removal and their authorization to work in the United States on Feb. 5, 2027.
Attorneys and advocacy organizations have expressed concern that the Trump administration does not intend to renew the directive.
According to Politico, State Department officials have privately informed Bickett and representatives of Hong Kong exile organizations that the administration does not plan to extend the protections beyond their scheduled expiration.
Frances Hui, policy and advocacy manager at the Washington-based Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, said discussions with officials had left advocates expecting the program to end.
Hui told Politico that advocates have received “a pretty clear signal from the administration.”
The Department of Homeland Security declined to provide a definitive answer about whether the protections would be renewed. The State Department and White House referred questions concerning the program to DHS.
As a result, no formal decision to extend or terminate the designation beyond its scheduled expiration has been publicly established, although advocates say the administration’s communications suggest renewal is unlikely.
The uncertainty has significant consequences for Hong Kong residents who have spent years living and working in the United States under the program.
Because DED is temporary, participants do not automatically acquire permanent residency or another independent immigration classification simply by remaining in the country throughout the protection period.
Those without separate immigration relief could therefore face removal proceedings once the presidential deferral expires.
For people who left Hong Kong because of concerns about political persecution, the possibility of deportation raises fears about returning to a jurisdiction where authorities have prosecuted pro-democracy activists and individuals associated with opposition movements.
The United States has previously granted refuge or temporary protection to individuals fleeing political crackdowns in Hong Kong, and the DED program formed part of Washington’s broader response to Beijing’s national security policies.
The Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities have now brought that policy into tension with federal efforts to detain and remove foreign nationals who lack permanent immigration status.
Congressional Democrats have responded by introducing legislation intended to give qualifying Hong Kong residents a more permanent means of remaining in the United States.
On Sept. 30, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced the Hong Konger Promise of Refuge Act, a measure that would create a pathway to lawful permanent residency for eligible individuals previously covered by Deferred Enforced Departure.
The proposed legislation, designated S. 5606, would allow qualifying Hong Kong residents to apply for adjustment of status rather than depend indefinitely on presidential decisions extending temporary deportation relief.
The bill includes eligibility requirements involving prior DED coverage, continuous residence and other immigration conditions. It would also provide protections against detention and removal while qualifying applications for permanent residency are pending.
Under the proposal, eligible applicants who satisfy the statutory requirements could receive lawful permanent resident status, creating a potential path toward eventual U.S. citizenship.
Merkley has argued that the United States should continue protecting Hong Kong residents who sought refuge from political repression, particularly those who relied on American assurances when deciding to remain in the country.
In announcing the legislation alongside Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., Merkley emphasized the continuing erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong.
“As the PRC and Hong Kong authorities continue to undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers, the United States must protect Hong Kong residents who have sought refuge in America,” Merkley said.
McGovern, who has worked with Merkley on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, supported the effort as part of a broader commitment to protecting individuals threatened by political persecution.
The proposed legislation represents a congressional alternative to depending on successive presidential extensions of temporary protection.
However, the measure faces significant legislative obstacles. As of Oct. 12, it remained pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it had been referred following its introduction.
No Republican senator had joined the bill as a cosponsor, according to the available legislative record, leaving its prospects uncertain in a closely divided political environment.
The legislation would require congressional approval and the president’s signature before becoming law. Until then, existing immigration rules and the scheduled expiration of DED remain in effect.
The controversy surrounding the Hong Kong detentions also raises broader questions about the treatment of individuals who receive temporary humanitarian or foreign policy protections without acquiring formal immigration status.
Deferred Enforced Departure differs from Temporary Protected Status, another mechanism used to protect foreign nationals from removal when conditions in their home countries make return unsafe.
Temporary Protected Status is established under federal immigration law and administered through a statutory designation process, while DED arises directly from presidential foreign affairs authority.
Both mechanisms can provide temporary protection against deportation and authorization to work, but neither automatically grants permanent residence.
The absence of a permanent status can leave beneficiaries vulnerable when administrations change policies, decline to renew protections or interpret enforcement powers differently.
The Hong Kong cases illustrate those tensions because the administration has simultaneously recognized an existing presidential deferral and asserted authority to pursue immigration enforcement proceedings against individuals covered by it.
Although DHS has emphasized its legal authority to initiate removal proceedings, the immigration court rulings ordering detainees released have limited the immediate consequences of those actions for the 12 individuals whose cases were examined.
The government’s position nevertheless leaves open the possibility of additional detentions and continued litigation during the remaining months of the protection period.
The current record does not establish that any of the 12 Hong Kong residents examined by Politico has been deported. Instead, the documented cases involve detention, contested removal proceedings and judicial orders permitting release under monitoring conditions.
That distinction is important because the central dispute concerns whether federal authorities can detain individuals who are protected from actual deportation until a specified future date.
For Hong Kong exile organizations, the immediate concern is that detention and pressure to accept voluntary departure could prompt individuals to leave the United States before their existing protections expire.
For the Department of Homeland Security, the legal issue centers on whether an administrative deferral of removal restricts immigration enforcement powers beyond the government’s ability to carry out a deportation.
Neither question has been conclusively resolved through the individual release orders described in Politico’s investigation.
With the February deadline approaching, Hong Kong residents covered by DED face uncertainty over whether they will be permitted to remain in the United States, obtain alternative immigration relief or become subject to removal once the presidential directive expires.
The administration has not publicly committed to extending the program, and Congress has not enacted legislation providing permanent protection.
For the individuals already detained and released, the immediate consequences include electronic monitoring, restrictions on movement and continuing immigration proceedings. For others relying on the same presidential directive, the cases demonstrate how temporary protection can become the subject of enforcement disputes even before its formal expiration.
The outcome will depend on future decisions by the Trump administration, immigration courts and Congress. Unless the existing protections are extended or qualifying residents obtain another legal basis to remain, Feb. 5, 2027, will mark the end of the deportation deferral established for Hong Kong residents under the Biden administration.
Original article
Comments