Sponsors (27)
Rewrites federal parole authority for noncitizens so parole may be used only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, and sets new limits and conditions on parole grants. It bars routine or mass parole of nationals of a "country of concern" unless the Secretary of State waives that bar, caps parole at 3,000 grants per fiscal year beginning in FY2029, and gives States a private right to sue if the statute's parole rules are violated. The bill also records congressional findings asserting that large-scale use of parole by the Executive Branch has bypassed normal visa and refugee processes, cites a federal court critique of en masse parole, and frames systemic parole use as a national security risk that should be prevented.
Parole under immigration law, exercised at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, is intended to be granted only after strictly evaluating each individual applicant’s urgent humanitarian need or significant public benefit (case-by-case).
The section states that under the Biden Administration, Secretary Mayorkas abused the parole program and paroled an estimated total of 2.8 million aliens into the United States, bypassing lawful visa and refugee processes.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in its 2021 ruling in Texas v. Biden, wrote that Secretary Mayorkas’ parole of inadmissible aliens was criticized as 'en masse is the opposite of case-by-case decision making' and described the actions as 'misenforcement, suspension of the Immigration Nationality Act, or both.'
The section finds that systemic abuse of parole for aliens outside the United States is a threat to national security and states that future abuse should be prevented.
Amends Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) to replace the existing text with the provisions that follow in this section.
Who is affected and how:
Noncitizens (including asylum-seekers, migrants, and other foreign nationals): The pool of people eligible for parole would shrink because parole must be granted case-by-case and is limited to urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Nationality-based bars (countries of concern) could exclude entire groups unless waivers are granted. Overall fewer parole grants are allowed once the 3,000-per-year cap takes effect.
Refugee and visa applicants: Because parole is narrowed and capped, more people may need to use traditional visa, refugee, or asylum pathways rather than being admitted on parole. This could increase pressure on existing asylum and resettlement processes.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and component agencies (CBP, ICE, USCIS): Operational policies and intake procedures would need revision to conform to the new statutory standards. DHS discretion to use broad or programmatic parole would be curtailed, and agencies may see new litigation from States challenging parole decisions.
State governments: States gain new legal standing to sue the federal government for alleged violations of the parole statute, potentially increasing federal–state litigation and oversight of parole practices.
Courts and legal system: The statutory right to sue and tighter limits on parole will likely generate litigation over what constitutes an "urgent humanitarian reason," a "significant public benefit," the scope of the nationality bar, and whether parole denials or grants comply with the new standards.
National security and public-policy stakeholders: The bill is designed to reduce what it characterizes as systemic or mass parole on national-security grounds; agencies and analysts focused on border security, public safety, or foreign policy could see changes to risk and case-management calculations.
Possible downstream effects and tradeoffs:
Last progress June 4, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 4, 2025 by Addison P. McDowell
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.