African Communities Together et al v. Noem et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
___________________________________
)
AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER; 	)
MARY DOE; DAVID DOE; PETER DOE; 	)
and JACOB DOE, on behalf of 	)
themselves and all others 	)
similarly situated, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action
) 	No. 25-cv-13939-PBS
KRISTI NOEM, in her official 	)
capacity as Secretary of the 	)
Department of Homeland Security; 	)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 	)
SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 	)
IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and UNITED 	)
STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
______________________________ 	)
ORDER
April 9, 2026
Saris, J.
Defendants 	have 	appealed 	this 	Court’s 	order 	postponing 	the
termination 	of 	South 	Sudan’s 	Temporary 	Protected 	Status 	(“TPS”)
designation. 	See 	Afr. 	Cmtys. 	Together 	v. 	Noem, 	__ 	F. 	Supp. 	3d 	__
(D. 	Mass. 	2026) 	[2026 	WL 	395732], 	appeal 	filed, 	No. 	26-1254 	(1st
Cir. 	Mar. 	13, 	2026). 	Now 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendants’ 	motion
for a stay pending appeal. The Supreme Court has recently deferred
resolving 	applications 	for 	stays 	in 	similar 	cases. 	See 	Noem 	v.
Doe, 	__ 	S. 	Ct. 	__, 	__ 	(2026) 	[2026 	WL 	731088, 	at 	*1]. 	Lacking
Case 1:25-cv-13939-PBS Document 81 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 6

2
further 	guidance 	from 	the 	Supreme 	Court, 	this 	Court 	denies
Defendants’ motion.
In 	considering 	Defendants’ 	request 	for 	a 	stay, 	the 	Court
assesses 	four 	factors: 	(1) 	whether 	Defendants 	“ha[ve] 	made 	‘a
strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits’ of
[their] appeal”; (2) whether Defendants “ha[ve] shown that [they]
‘will be irreparably injured absent a stay’”; (3) “whether issuance
of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested
in the proceeding”; and (4) “where the public interest lies.” New
York v. Kennedy, 155 F.4th 67, 72 (1st Cir. 2025) (quoting Nken v.
Holder, 	556 	U.S. 	418, 	426 	(2009)). 	Defendants 	“bear[] 	the 	burden
of justifying the extraordinary relief” of a stay pending appeal.
Id.
Defendants 	repeat 	the 	arguments 	they 	already 	raised 	in
opposing 	Plaintiffs’ 	motion 	for 	postponement. 	In 	particular,
Defendants 	contend 	that 	they 	are 	likely 	to 	succeed 	on 	the 	merits
of 	their 	arguments 	that 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1254a(b)(5)(A) 	bars 	judicial
review; that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) deprives the Court of authority
to postpone a TPS termination; that former Secretary Noem published
the 	true 	basis 	for 	her 	termination 	determination 	in 	the 	Federal
Register 	and 	did 	not 	act 	pretextually; 	and 	that 	former 	Secretary
Noem 	consulted 	with 	appropriate 	agencies. 	Defendants 	further
assert 	that 	the 	equities 	warrant 	a 	stay 	and 	that 	5 	U.S.C. 	§ 	705
does 	not 	authorize 	universal 	relief. 	The 	Court 	rejected 	all 	of
Case 1:25-cv-13939-PBS Document 81 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 6

3
these arguments in its opinion postponing the termination of South
Sudan’s TPS designation, see Afr. Cmtys. Together, __ F. Supp. 3d
at 	__ 	[2026 	WL 	395732, 	at 	*5-14], 	and 	does 	so 	again 	here 	for 	the
same reasons.
One point newly raised by Defendants merits brief attention.
In 	the 	Court’s 	opinion 	granting 	Plaintiffs’ 	motion 	to 	postpone,
the Court noted that when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”) “searched for records of fraud or public safety concerns
among 	228 	South 	Sudanese 	TPS 	holders” 	in 	its 	Fraud 	Detection 	and
National 	Security 	(“FDNS”) 	database, 	“it 	found 	none.” 	Id. 	at 	__
[2026 	WL 	395732, 	at 	*10] 	(citing 	Dkt. 	59-1 	at 	129). 	Defendants
concede the accuracy of this statement but highlight, for the first
time in this litigation, that when the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”) searched a different database called “TECS,” that
database 	“reveal[ed] 	that 	approximately 	28% 	of 	South 	Sudan[ese]
TPS beneficiaries or applicants have at least one TECS hit in their
immigration benefit request history.” Dkt. 70 at 11 (quoting Dkt.
59-1 	at 	138). 	Defendants 	contend 	that 	these 	TECS 	hits 	provide
support 	for 	former 	Secretary 	Noem’s 	statement 	in 	the 	Federal
Register 	that 	South 	Sudanese 	TPS 	holders 	have 	“been 	subjects 	of
administrative 	investigation 	for 	fraud, 	public 	safety[,] 	and
national 	security 	concerns.” 	Termination 	of 	the 	Designation 	of
South 	Sudan 	for 	Temporary 	Protected 	Status, 	90 	Fed. 	Reg. 	50484,
50486 (Nov. 6, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-13939-PBS Document 81 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
The 	TECS 	database 	“is 	the 	principal 	system 	used 	by 	officers
at the border to assist with screening and determinations regarding
admissibility 	of 	arriving 	persons.” 	U.S. 	Dep’t 	of 	Homeland 	Sec.,
TECS System: CBP Primary and Secondary Processing (TECS) National
SAR 	Initiative 	2 	(2011),
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-
pia-cbp-tecs-sar-update_0.pdf; 	see 	Melino 	v. 	Bos. 	Med. 	Ctr., 	127
F.4th 391, 394 n.1 (1st Cir. 2025) (taking judicial notice of the
contents 	of 	government 	websites). 	Defendants 	are 	correct 	that
“TECS is an information-sharing platform” that can be used, among
other things, “to identify individuals who pose a risk to national
security 	or 	public 	safety[] 	and 	individuals 	attempting 	to 	obtain
immigration benefits through fraud or misrepresentation.” Dkt. 59-
1 at 138. But TECS also incorporates various other data, including
Border 	Patrol 	agents’ 	“observation[s] 	relating 	to 	an 	encounter
with a traveler” or other “memorable event[s].” TECS System, supra,
at 	2. 	Due 	to 	the 	breadth 	of 	the 	TECS 	platform, 	“a 	TECS 	hit 	does
not always lead to derogatory findings or a negative adjudicative
outcome” 	with 	respect 	to 	fraud, 	public 	safety, 	or 	national
security. Dkt. 59-1 at 138.
On 	the 	other 	hand, 	USCIS’s 	FDNS 	Directorate 	conducts
administrative 	investigations 	specifically 	into 	“suspected 	or
confirmed 	fraud, 	criminal 	activity, 	public 	safety[,] 	and/or
national 	security 	concerns.” 	U.S. 	Dep’t 	of 	Homeland 	Sec., 	Fraud
Case 1:25-cv-13939-PBS Document 81 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Detection 	and 	National 	Security 	Directorate 	9 	(2014),
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-
pia-uscis013-01fdnsprogram-appendixgupdate-march2020.pdf. 	In
doing so, it consults various databases, including (but not limited
to) 	TECS. 	See 	id. 	at 	10. 	Therefore, 	the 	administrative 	record
likely 	reflects 	that 	none 	of 	the 	South 	Sudanese 	TECS 	hits 	were
found 	to 	be 	associated 	with 	fraud 	or 	public 	safety 	concerns 	when
investigated by USCIS in the FDNS data. See Dkt. 59-1 at 129.
Indeed, Defendants do not assert that any such concerns were
identified. 	Rather, 	they 	merely 	argue 	that 	South 	Sudanese 	TPS
holders 	and 	applicants 	were 	“subject 	to 	administrative
investigation[],” as noted in the Federal Register. Dkt. 70 at 11
(quoting 	Dkt. 	59-1 	at 	138). 	To 	the 	extent 	this 	administrative
investigation 	consisted 	of 	USCIS 	querying 	FDNS 	data, 	Defendants
are plainly correct that such an “investigation” occurred, and the
Court’s opinion is in accord. See Afr. Cmtys. Together, __ F. Supp.
3d 	at 	__ 	[2026 	WL 	395732, 	at 	*10] 	(“[W]hen 	USCIS 	searched 	for
records 	of 	fraud 	or 	public 	safety 	concerns 	. 	. 	. 	it 	found 	none.”
(emphasis 	added)). 	The 	fact 	remains 	that 	no 	evidence 	of 	actual
fraud or public safety concerns was uncovered, at least according
to 	the 	administrative 	record. 	Given 	that 	the 	purported
“investigation” 	apparently 	revealed 	no 	such 	concerns, 	former
Secretary 	Noem’s 	reference 	to 	the 	investigation 	in 	support 	of
Case 1:25-cv-13939-PBS Document 81 Filed 04/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
terminating the TPS designation is, in the Court’s view, evidence
of pretext.
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	Defendants’ 	motion 	for 	a 	stay
pending appeal (Dkt. 69) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ PATTI B. SARIS________________
Hon. Patti B. Saris
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13939-PBS Document 81 Filed 04/09/26 Page 6 of 6