Green cards could be revoked at any time under newly proposed rule

The US Justice Department told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals this week that Attorney General Pam Bondi has the authority to reconsider and potentially revoke the lawful permanent residency of green card holders at any time. The case, if decided in favour of the government, could allow green cards to be withdrawn years or even decades after being issued, according to a report by Newsweek.

The remarks came during a court hearing involving Mohammad Qatanani, a Palestinian-born imam living in New Jersey since 1996. He has led one of the state’s largest mosques and has been seeking permanent residency for over 20 years. Federal officials denied his application in 2006, citing a 1993 detention in Israel and alleged links to Hamas. Qatanani denies the allegations, stating he was detained and mistreated.

Immigration judges ruled twice in Qatanani’s favour, most recently in 2020. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals later reversed the decision and revoked his green card. Qatanani appealed the revocation.

During the hearing, Justice Department attorney Lindsay Murphy argued that the immigration judge's ruling had not been finalized due to missing procedural steps, such as visa number assignment and biometric updates. As per the Newsweek report, she said, “The regulation doesn’t impose any time limit, so yes,” when asked if green card status could be challenged even after 10 or 20 years. “But that certification requirement comes also with the requirement that there be exceptional circumstances.” Judge Arianna Freeman questioned this broad interpretation, asking, “Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?”

Legal experts have raised concerns about the implications. Amelia Wilson, Assistant Professor at Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, told Newsweek, “The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear. The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally revoke a permanent resident's status.” She added that revocation requires a formal process, including a Notice of Intent to Rescind and a hearing. “It is the government that bears the burden of proving by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence,” Wilson said.

Bradford Bernstein, managing partner at Spar Bernstein, said, “The government is arguing that it can revoke a green card years or even decades after it was granted, based solely on a claim that an immigration judge did not complete all the administrative steps.” He warned, “Accepting this argument would severely undermine the due process rights of permanent residents.”

Wilson added, “The Justice Department's position before the Third Circuit is yet another attempt to terrorize immigrant communities. The Trump administration is telling noncitizens that they are never safe from sudden detention and deportation.”

If the court rules in favour of the government, the decision would apply within the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction—Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. However, it could set a precedent and, if upheld by the Supreme Court, impact immigration enforcement nationwide.