Humanitarian parole as administrative discretion
What is Humanitarian Parole and Administrative Discretion?
Humanitarian parole allows entry into the U.S. for urgent situations (e.g., medical emergencies, family reunification, or urgent humanitarian crises).
It is not a formal admission or visa but a temporary permission granted by agency officials.
It is inherently discretionary—no legal right to parole, and decisions are made case-by-case.
Courts generally give broad deference to agency decisions but may review for abuse of discretion or procedural fairness.
Legal Basis
Authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).
Parole is granted “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.”
Key Cases on Humanitarian Parole as Administrative Discretion
1. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
Although primarily about waiver standards, this case clarifies discretionary nature of relief including parole.
Key Point: Discretionary relief must be grounded in a case-by-case, balanced assessment.
Relevant because it establishes that humanitarian parole isn’t automatic and depends on nuanced agency judgment.
2. Ghasemzadeh v. USCIS, 900 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2018)
Facts: Applicant challenged denial of humanitarian parole to visit a seriously ill family member.
Holding: Court recognized that parole is discretionary but also held that USCIS must exercise discretion rationally and not arbitrarily.
Significance: Courts can review parole denials for abuse of discretion but won’t replace agency judgment.
Takeaway: There must be a reasoned basis for denial.
3. Garcia v. USCIS, 2019 WL 2251870 (N.D. Cal.)
Issue: Plaintiff challenged USCIS’s denial of parole on procedural grounds.
Holding: Court ruled that USCIS must provide a rational explanation and follow internal guidelines but does not have to grant parole.
Significance: Confirms procedural fairness limits; parole remains discretionary but decisions must be transparent.
4. Bhattarai v. Mayorkas, 2021 WL 4059229 (N.D. Cal.)
Facts: Challenge to parole denial for urgent medical treatment.
Holding: Court deferred to USCIS discretion, finding no abuse given agency’s review of circumstances.
Significance: Reinforces strong deference to agency expertise on humanitarian parole.
5. Khalid v. Mayorkas, 2021 WL 1165231 (S.D.N.Y.)
Issue: Plaintiff sought parole for urgent family reasons.
Holding: Court recognized parole as “rare and exceptional” relief; upheld denial after reviewing agency’s rationale.
Significance: Highlights parole as exceptional measure, not entitlement.
Summary of Judicial Approach
Courts strongly defer to agency discretion in humanitarian parole.
Agencies must have rational, fact-based reasons for grant or denial.
Courts ensure procedural fairness (clear explanation, adherence to policy).
Parole is extraordinary relief reserved for urgent or compelling reasons.
No entitlement or legal right exists; parole is a favor granted by the agency.
Quick question for you:
Why do you think humanitarian parole is designed to be discretionary rather than a guaranteed right? What benefits or challenges does this create for applicants and agencies?
RELATED Blog
0 comments