Imagine receiving a notice from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars—or even approximately $1.8 million—because the government alleges that you failed to depart the United States after a removal order.
You may have been attending ICE supervision appointments, pursuing a family-based petition, applying for humanitarian relief, or attempting to resolve an old immigration case.
Yet you receive an enormous civil penalty.
A government demand for payment does not mean that every legal element of the alleged violation has been established or that the assessment is beyond challenge.
Recent federal litigation has also placed significant restrictions on the enforcement of certain immigration civil fines.
But the legal response must address two separate matters: the financial penalty and the underlying immigration case.
A Federal Court Has Stayed the 2025 Immigration-Fine Rule
On September 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., sitting in the District of Massachusetts, granted preliminary relief in Maria L. v. Mullin, No. 25-cv-13471.
The court stayed the June 27, 2025 interim final rule concerning immigration-related civil penalties and fines issued under that rule, pending further court order.
The ruling is significant for individuals who received substantial assessments under the challenged regulatory framework.
However, a judicial stay is not the same thing as permanent cancellation of the underlying statutory penalties.
The stay does not automatically:
- Grant lawful immigration status;
- Vacate an existing removal order;
- Approve an asylum or family-based application;
- Cancel every possible civil penalty under immigration law;
- Require automatic reimbursement of money already paid; or
- Permanently prevent DHS from adopting a legally valid regulatory procedure.
Anyone relying on the stay should confirm whether the assessment is covered and whether the court has subsequently modified its order.
The Government Must Identify the Particular Statutory Violation
Not every immigration-related fine is based on the same statute.
Under 8 U.S.C. §1324d, civil penalties may arise from specified conduct involving a final removal order, including willfully failing or refusing to depart, failing to make good-faith efforts to obtain necessary travel documents, or failing to present for removal as required.
The statutory elements matter.
A person who has a final removal order is not automatically guilty of every violation listed in that provision.
For example, the government may need to address whether the alleged failure was willful or whether the person made legally relevant good-faith efforts to comply.
Separate provisions govern certain violations of voluntary-departure requirements.
Accordingly, the first step should be to identify the statute and regulation cited in the actual notice.
A Removal Order Does Not Eliminate Every Available Defense
A final removal order is a serious legal matter.
But the existence of an order does not eliminate the need to evaluate the elements of the specific civil penalty being assessed.
Relevant questions may include:
- Was there a final removal order during the assessed period?
- Was the individual properly notified of the relevant obligations?
- What specific conduct is alleged?
- Was the alleged failure to depart willful?
- Were travel documents available?
- Did the person cooperate in obtaining travel documents?
- Did ICE issue particular reporting or departure instructions?
- Did the person comply with those instructions?
- Was removal legally stayed?
- Were removal proceedings reopened?
- Was there another legal development affecting the alleged violation?
These questions should be answered from the record rather than assumptions.
Pending Immigration Relief and ICE Supervision Can Matter
Some individuals receiving these assessments have continued pursuing immigration relief while remaining under ICE supervision.
They may have complied with reporting requirements, maintained current addresses, attended appointments, and pursued family-based or humanitarian applications.
A pending petition does not necessarily confer lawful immigration status or automatically stay removal.
Likewise, an order of supervision does not automatically cancel a final removal order.
Nevertheless, the person’s actual conduct, applicable court orders, government instructions, and efforts to comply may be relevant to whether the statutory violation occurred and whether the assessment was lawfully imposed.
The inquiry must be individualized.
The Maria L. Litigation Illustrates Why Individual Circumstances Matter
The litigation involved individuals facing extraordinary civil penalties despite circumstances requiring careful individualized examination.
One plaintiff, identified as Nancy M., reportedly faced an assessment of approximately $1.82 million while subject to immigration supervision and later became a lawful permanent resident.
Her circumstances illustrate why a penalty assessment cannot be evaluated solely by looking at the amount demanded.
The existence of immigration proceedings, applications, supervision, and subsequent immigration developments may all be legally relevant.
However, one plaintiff’s circumstances or favorable immigration outcome does not guarantee that another recipient’s fine will be cancelled.
The Court Identified Serious Problems With the 2025 Procedures
In granting preliminary relief, the District of Massachusetts found substantial legal defects in the challenged regulatory framework and assessment practices.
The concerns included inadequate individualized consideration and the government’s adoption of procedural changes without the required notice-and-comment process.
Those findings support the court’s preliminary intervention.
They should not, however, be described as a final judicial determination that every recipient is permanently exempt from the underlying statutes.
The case remains subject to further litigation and court orders.
Verify the Amount: How Did ICE Calculate the Fine?
A civil penalty of hundreds of thousands of dollars requires careful examination.
Counsel should request or review:
- The statutory basis;
- The daily penalty rate;
- The dates used in the calculation;
- The alleged period of noncompliance;
- Any inflation adjustments;
- Whether multiple penalties were assessed;
- Whether the dates overlap;
- Whether the person was subject to a stay or other relevant legal protection;
- Whether ICE identified the specific conduct supporting the charge; and
- Whether the assessment was issued under the stayed rule.
An amount appearing on government letterhead is not a substitute for a legally supportable calculation.
Service and Administrative Deadlines Can Be Critical
The notice itself should be preserved.
That includes:
- Every page of the notice;
- The envelope;
- Postmark;
- Mailing label;
- Tracking information;
- Date of actual receipt;
- Any electronic delivery records;
- Instructions for contesting the assessment; and
- Subsequent collection communications.
Different stages of the process may require different responses.
An initial assessment, an administrative appeal, a final agency decision, and a collection notice are not interchangeable.
Counsel should determine the governing procedure and deadline applicable to the specific document received.
The October 14, 2026 Final Rule Requires Separate Review
DHS issued a subsequent final rule scheduled for publication on October 14, 2026, with effectiveness tied to publication.
The rule addresses the procedures for imposing and collecting specified immigration-related civil penalties.
Its appeal provisions describe a 15-business-day period measured from service, with mailing rules and a limited exception involving documented mail delays beyond the recipient’s control.
But an attorney should not simply assume that the publication of a new final rule eliminates the September 30 judicial stay or makes every previously stayed assessment immediately collectible.
The interaction between the new rule, the court’s order, and an individual notice must be evaluated.
The correct administrative deadline should be calculated from the applicable operative regulation and actual service facts.
Do Not Assume Every Fine Is Appealable to the BIA
The forum for contesting an immigration civil penalty is not necessarily the same forum used to appeal an Immigration Judge’s removal decision.
Changes to DHS civil-penalty procedures have also affected administrative review.
Therefore, a recipient should not automatically file Form EOIR-26 or assume that the Board of Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction over the penalty.
The notice, governing regulation, and current court orders must identify the correct review mechanism.
Filing in the wrong forum may fail to preserve an important deadline.
Financial Hardship Is Important—but Not Automatically a Complete Defense
An assessment approaching $1.8 million can be financially devastating.
The recipient may lack meaningful assets or any realistic ability to pay.
Financial circumstances may be relevant to the legal challenge, collection issues, or available discretionary considerations.
But inability to pay should not automatically be presented as a complete statutory defense.
The analysis must separately address whether the violation occurred, whether the assessment was lawfully imposed, whether the amount was properly calculated, and what relief is available.
Be Careful Before Paying or Entering an Installment Agreement
Before making a substantial payment or signing an agreement, a recipient should understand:
- Whether the assessment is presently enforceable;
- Whether it is covered by the judicial stay;
- Whether administrative review remains available;
- Whether payment affects available defenses;
- Whether the agreement includes admissions or waivers;
- Whether any refund mechanism exists;
- What happens if the fine is later set aside; and
- Whether the arrangement creates additional obligations.
A temporary stay does not necessarily mean money already paid will automatically be returned.
Recipients should also avoid assuming that payment is required immediately merely because an earlier notice demands it.
Departure May Have Separate Immigration Consequences
A person facing an immigration civil penalty may be told that departure from the United States could affect the fine.
But departure can also have serious consequences for the underlying immigration case.
Depending on the person’s history, departure may implicate:
- Unlawful-presence bars;
- Prior removal orders;
- Restrictions on returning after removal;
- Consent-to-reapply requirements;
- Pending asylum applications;
- Pending adjustment applications;
- Motions to reopen;
- Family-based immigrant processing; and
- Other inadmissibility issues.
A proposal to depart in exchange for cancellation or reduction of a penalty should therefore be reviewed carefully.
A financial resolution should not be pursued without understanding its immigration consequences.
Do Not Abandon the Underlying Immigration Case
Challenging an ICE fine does not itself resolve removability or grant immigration relief.
The person may still need to pursue:
- Asylum or withholding of removal;
- Family-based immigration relief;
- Adjustment of status;
- Motions to reopen;
- Motions to rescind an in absentia order;
- Administrative appeals;
- Judicial review;
- Applicable waivers; or
- Other relief.
The legal strategy should preserve the immigration case while separately addressing the civil penalty.
Continue Complying With Existing Legal Obligations
Unless a legally effective order changes the person’s obligations, recipients should continue complying with applicable Immigration Court hearing notices, ICE supervision requirements, and other lawful instructions.
A stay of a civil-penalty regulation does not independently cancel removal proceedings or suspend every reporting requirement.
Similarly, submitting a challenge or receiving a filing acknowledgment does not necessarily mean that the agency has withdrawn an assessment or that all collection activity has stopped.
Written confirmation and current legal authority matter.
Build a Complete Record Before Responding
A proper legal review should begin with a complete chronology.
Important documents include:
- ICE civil-penalty notice;
- Removal order;
- Immigration Court decisions;
- BIA decisions;
- Federal court orders;
- ICE supervision documents;
- Reporting history;
- Travel-document requests;
- Communications with consulates;
- USCIS application receipts;
- Approved immigration petitions;
- Evidence of pending relief;
- Any stay of removal;
- Payment records;
- Collection correspondence; and
- Proof of service.
Written government assurances and contemporaneous notes of agency communications should also be preserved.
The objective is to establish what the government alleges, what actually happened, which legal rules applied, and what response remains available.
Key Takeaways
- The September 30, 2026 order in Maria L. v. Mullin stayed the June 2025 interim final rule and fines issued under it, pending further court order.
- A stay is not the same as permanent cancellation, reimbursement, lawful status, or relief from a removal order.
- DHS must establish the statutory elements of the particular civil-penalty violation.
- Pending immigration relief and ICE supervision do not automatically prevent a fine, but individual circumstances can matter significantly.
- The amount, calculation period, statutory rate, service, and applicable deadline should be independently verified.
- The October 2026 final rule and subsequent court orders must be reviewed before deciding which procedures apply.
- An immigration civil-penalty appeal is not automatically a BIA appeal.
- Financial hardship does not automatically eliminate statutory liability.
- Payment, installment agreements, and departure arrangements can create separate legal consequences.
- A civil-penalty challenge should be pursued without neglecting the underlying immigration case.
Received a Substantial Civil Fine From ICE?
If ICE has assessed a significant civil penalty against you while you were pursuing immigration relief, complying with supervision, or attempting to resolve a prior removal order, obtain legal review before making irreversible decisions.
Our office can evaluate the statutory basis, calculation, service, administrative deadlines, applicability of federal court protection, supervision history, and underlying immigration proceedings to identify available defenses and appropriate next steps.
Law Offices of Chris Aguocha LLC
Office: 301-322-1304
Cell: 240-470-4364
Email: chris@aguochalawyer.com
Disclaimer: This article provides general educational information and does not constitute legal advice.
