This bill rewrites parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act to treat association with criminal gangs as an independent immigration disqualification. It adds a statutory definition of “criminal gang,” authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (in consultation with the Attorney General) to designate groups as gangs, and makes membership or participation in such gangs a ground for inadmissibility and deportability.
The measure also tightens immigration relief and custody rules: it folds gang-based grounds into the list of aliens subject to mandatory detention, restricts asylum, Temporary Protected Status, Special Immigrant Juvenile eligibility, and parole for people tied to gangs, and allows classification and ex parte review of evidence used in designation decisions. Those changes substantially reallocate decisionmaking authority and evidentiary practices toward DHS and DOJ and away from more transparent administrative and judicial forums.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new statutory definition of ‘criminal gang’ to the INA and makes membership or participation in such a gang a categorical ground of inadmissibility and deportability. It authorizes DHS, with DOJ consultation, to designate groups as criminal gangs using an administrative record that may include classified information, and it incorporates those grounds into mandatory detention and several relief bars.
Who It Affects
DHS components (CBP, ICE, USCIS), the Department of Justice, consular officers, immigration courts and judges, noncitizens alleged to have gang ties (including applicants for asylum, TPS, SIJ status, and parole), and counsel and community organizations representing those individuals. Congress and the D.C. Circuit are the named actors for oversight and judicial review, respectively.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a parallel administrative regime to identify gangs and then converts that designation into immigration disqualifications with narrow review paths and heavy use of classified evidence. That combination raises enforcement capacity—potentially increasing detention and removals—while reducing transparency and shifting key determinations away from case-by-case adjudication.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new, standalone definition of “criminal gang” into the INA: a group of five or more people whose primary purpose is to commit certain listed offenses and that has engaged in a continuing series of such offenses within the past five years, or a group designated as a gang by DHS in consultation with DOJ. The list of predicate offenses is broad and pulls from multiple federal statutes (drug felonies, crimes of violence, identity-fraud and access-device statutes, trafficking and slavery statutes, racketeering-related statutes, interstate transportation of stolen property, certain immigration offenses, and conspiracies to commit those crimes).
That statutory architecture creates two routes to an immigration consequence: (1) meeting the factual predicate in the text of the definition, or (2) being a member of a group that DHS has administratively designated.
The bill gives DHS authority to designate groups as criminal gangs through a new Section 220. The designation process requires DHS to assemble an administrative record (which may include classified material), provide a short, classified notice to congressional leaders and relevant committees before publication, and then publish the designation in the Federal Register.
Designations are effective until revoked; a designated group can petition for revocation under specified timelines and DHS must decide within 180 days of a petition. The bill limits courtroom visibility into classified materials by allowing those materials to be submitted ex parte and in camera for judicial review and confines judicial challenges to the administrative record in the D.C.
Circuit.Once a group is defined or designated, the bill makes both membership and participation in gang activities knowing that those activities support the gang’s unlawful purposes independent grounds for inadmissibility and deportability. It adds those grounds to the list of aliens subject to mandatory detention, and it narrows relief options: asylum is explicitly denied to those described as gang members, TPS eligibility is restricted and moved under DHS authority, SIJ eligibility is curtailed for persons with gang associations, and parole is barred for gang-associated aliens except in the narrow circumstance where the alien is assisting the U.S. government in a law enforcement matter and the government requires the person’s presence.
The amendments apply retroactively to acts occurring before, on, or after enactment.Operationally the bill puts a premium on administrative designation and classified evidence, reduces avenues for meaningful challenge in individual removal hearings (the statute bars an alien from contesting the validity of a designation in a removal proceeding once a designation is effective), and creates reporting obligations (an annual DHS report on aliens detained under the new gang-based mandatory detention ground). Those structural choices change how immigration relief and custody decisions will be litigated and administered going forward.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statutory definition of a “criminal gang” requires five or more persons and either (A) a primary purpose of committing at least one of an enumerated list of offenses with a continuing series of such offenses within the past five years, or (B) an administrative designation by DHS/DOJ.
Predicate offenses listed in the definition draw from multiple federal statutes, including felony drug offenses (21 U.S.C. 802), crimes of violence (18 U.S.C. 16), identity-fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. 1028–1029), trafficking and slavery sections (18 U.S.C. 1581–1594), racketeering-related statutes (18 U.S.C. 1951, 1952, 1956, 1957), interstate transport of stolen property (18 U.S.C. 2312–2315), certain immigration crimes (8 U.S.C. 1324–1326 family provisions), and conspiracies to commit those offenses.
DHS may designate a group as a criminal gang after creating an administrative record; it must give a classified seven-day notice to congressional leadership and relevant committees, publish the designation in the Federal Register, and may use classified information that is later submitted ex parte and in camera to the D.C. Circuit for review.
Judicial review of designations is limited: a designated group has 30 days after Federal Register publication to seek review in the D.C. Circuit, review is confined to the administrative record (including classified submissions to the court), and the statute enumerates traditional APA-like bases for setting aside a designation.
The bill adds gang-based inadmissibility/deportability to the mandatory detention provision in INA §236(c), requires an annual DHS report on detentions under this ground, bars or limits asylum/TPS/SIJ/parole for those described as gang-associated, and makes the changes effective for conduct before, on, or after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the short name “Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.” This is procedural boilerplate but signals the bill’s enforcement-first framing to practitioners and agencies responsible for implementation.
Statutory definition of ‘criminal gang’ and enumerated predicates
Creates a new paragraph in INA §101 that defines ‘criminal gang’ as a group of at least five people with a primary purpose of committing certain crimes and that has engaged in a continuing series of such crimes within five years, or as a group DHS designates under the new process. The practical implication is that immigration consequences can attach either because the factual threshold in the statute is met or because DHS has designated a group; the cross-reference to many federal statutes means the definition reaches a large universe of criminal conduct and conspiratorial activity.
Adds gang association as inadmissibility ground
Adds a new subsection making any alien inadmissible if a consular officer, DHS, or DOJ knows or has reason to believe the alien is or has been a gang member or participated in gang activities knowing they would promote illegal gang activity. This shorthand—‘knows or has reason to believe’—allocates significant discretion to screening officers and adjudicators and lowers the evidentiary posture compared with many removal adjudications.
Adds gang association as deportability ground
Makes the same membership/participation standard a ground for deportability. Because the statutory language mirrors inadmissibility (including the ‘knows or has reason to believe’ standard), removal proceedings can be initiated on similar operational evidence. Importantly, once the new designation mechanism is in play, DHS can rely on that designation in removal cases and the statute also prevents aliens from litigating the validity of a designation in their removal hearing.
Administrative designation procedure and judicial review
Establishes DHS authority to designate groups as criminal gangs in consultation with DOJ, sets a short classified-notice requirement to congressional leadership, requires publication in the Federal Register after seven days, and mandates an administrative record that may include classified material. It provides a review path: a designated group can petition for revocation (first petition earliest after two years), DHS has 180 days to decide, and the D.C. Circuit can review the record within 30 days of Federal Register publication. The section allows DHS to amend or revoke designations and provides that revocations do not undo prior actions taken on the basis of a designation, which preserves removals already pursued.
Gang-based grounds added to mandatory detention and reporting
Adds the new inadmissibility/deportability grounds to the list of aliens subject to mandatory detention under INA §236(c). Practically, that means DHS will detain persons charged under the new grounds without access to a discretionary release process under §236(a) while removal proceedings are pending. The provision also requires an annual report to congressional judiciary committees on the number of aliens detained under the new gang-based detention ground, which creates a limited transparency mechanism for Congress.
Narrowing of relief and restrictions on parole
Makes several collateral amendments: it amends asylum and the categorical bars so that those described under the new gang grounds are not eligible for asylum; shifts TPS authority language from the Attorney General to DHS and bars TPS for those who are or were gang-associated; bars SIJ benefits for gang-associated aliens; and prevents parole for aliens described under the new inadmissibility ground unless the alien is assisting the U.S. government in a law enforcement matter and the government requires the alien’s presence. These changes limit case-by-case relief options for vulnerable populations and insert clear exceptions tied to government cooperation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal immigration enforcement (DHS and DOJ): The bill centralizes authority to identify gangs and converts designations into immigration consequences, giving DHS and DOJ a more standardized tool for targeting and removing noncitizens linked to gang activity.
- Federal prosecutors and law enforcement: Designations and the exclusion of parole except for government cooperators strengthen prosecutorial leverage and can facilitate coordination between immigration and criminal enforcement.
- Communities and local law enforcement in high-crime areas: If implemented and targeted accurately, removals of individuals tied to violent or organized offenses could be argued to reduce gang-related harm and assist local policing efforts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Noncitizens with alleged or coerced gang connections and their families: The broad definition, retroactive application, and relief bars can disqualify people from asylum, TPS, SIJ, or parole—even where gang affiliation was forced or minimal.
- DHS, ICE, and detention system: Mandatory detention expansions increase custodial burdens and costs; DHS must build and manage administrative records, handle classified materials, and produce the required annual report.
- Immigration courts and defense counsel: Adding a new, administratively produced category of removal cases will increase caseload complexity, create novel classified-evidence disputes, and impose representation challenges for counsel and community legal services.
- Civil liberties and immigrant-rights organizations: The use of ‘reason to believe’ standards and classified evidence raises surveillance, due process, and profiling concerns for advocates and oversight groups.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma pits a government interest in a clear, administrable tool to identify and remove individuals tied to organized criminal conduct against the protections of individualized adjudication, transparency, and due process: concentrating power in an administrative designation and classified record can speed enforcement but risks overbreadth, erroneous classification, and limited avenues to contest life-altering immigration consequences.
The bill packs several implementation and constitutional tension points into a compact set of amendments. First, the statutory definition mixes conduct-based criteria (primary purpose, continuing series within five years) with an administrative backstop (DHS designation).
That structure means an individual might be caught either by the objective statutory threshold or by an agency’s designation of a group they are alleged to belong to; the latter relies heavily on administrative processes not governed by the usual individual-adjudication protections.
Second, the bill authorizes substantial use of classified information in administrative records and allows the government to submit classified materials to courts ex parte and in camera. That protects sources and methods but reduces transparency, complicates defense counsel’s ability to attack evidence, and narrows public scrutiny of designation bases.
The bar on raising the validity of a designation in individual removal proceedings further concentrates the locus of meaningful challenge in a single, time-compressed D.C. Circuit review window rather than in the immigration-court setting where individual circumstances are considered.
Finally, the bill’s collateral bars to asylum, TPS, SIJ eligibility, and parole and its retroactive application create legal and humanitarian tensions. Narrowing relief eliminates discretionary safety valves for victims of coercion or exploitation who may have gang ties.
Mandatory detention expands custodial commitments at a time when DHS already faces capacity constraints, and the vague ‘knows or has reason to believe’ evidentiary standard invites inconsistent applications across consular officers, ICE, and USCIS.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.