A longtime Seattle resident who first arrived in the United States as a young refugee says he was blindsided when a letter from the Department of Homeland Security landed in his mailbox, demanding a civil penalty of $1.82 million. His attorney says the government effectively treated every single day he stayed after a 2007 removal order as its own violation, stacking the fines into a seven-figure bill. The man, now in his late 40s, has work authorization and attends regular check-ins, but his lawyer says he cannot get travel documents from Vietnam, which leaves him stuck in legal limbo while the meter keeps running.
What the DHS notice said
According to Atlanta News First, immigration attorney Olia Catala was on the phone with her client when she read the key line from the government notice: “It is ordered that a civil penalty be imposed upon you in the amount of $1,820,352.” She told the outlet that her client came to the United States from Vietnam in the early 1980s, when he was about 5 years old, and that immigration authorities issued him a final order of removal in 2007. Catala called the dollar figure “astronomical” and urged anyone who gets a similar letter not to freeze up, but instead to file an appeal and contact an attorney as quickly as possible.
Why the total can top $1 million
The legal muscle behind these daily fines comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under 8 U.S.C. §1324d, the government can impose civil penalties on people who willfully fail to depart after a final removal order. The provision traces back to a 1996 amendment, as reflected in the text of the U.S. Code. Over time, regulatory tweaks and inflation adjustments have pushed the effective daily penalty to about $998. That per-day rate, described in coverage of the government’s enforcement strategy and cited in reporting by The Washington Post, is how a long-ago removal order can quietly snowball into a bill that looks more like a lottery jackpot than a civil fine.
How DHS changed the rules in 2025
In June 2025, DHS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review rolled out an interim final rule that reshaped how these penalties are issued and challenged, creating 8 C.F.R. part 281 in the process. The rule, which appeared in the Federal Register on June 27, 2025, shortened the timeline for contesting penalties, allowed routine mail service, and limited the scope of further administrative review. The agencies said they needed the changes to apply the statute on a larger scale. Immigration attorneys and critics counter that the new procedures make it far easier and faster for DHS to lock in and collect hefty fines, especially from people who do not have lawyers watching the calendar.
Legal pushback and next steps for recipients
A federal lawsuit in Massachusetts is challenging the civil penalty framework as unconstitutional, according to Atlanta News First. At the same time, national advocacy organizations have pulled together practice advisories and model briefs to help people fight back against the notices. One advisory, prepared by Public Justice, The Legal Aid Society, the Free Migration Project, and NYU’s Immigrant Rights Clinic, outlines potential defenses that recipients might raise, including arguments about inadequate notice, statute-of-limitations issues, and due-process violations. It also breaks down how the 2025 rule reshapes the contest process. Catala told Atlanta News First that she urges clients not to panic but to contact an immigration attorney right away, and practitioners stress that acting quickly is crucial because the administrative windows for challenging these penalties are now much shorter.
What this could mean locally
For longtime residents in Seattle and other cities, the case highlights an uncomfortable reality. A final removal order can sit on a person’s record for years, even decades, while they continue living and working in the community, and the government may still be unable to secure travel documents to actually carry out the deportation. In the meantime, administrative penalties can quietly pile up in the background. Local legal-aid groups and immigration lawyers warn that mixed-status families and people who have little or no access to counsel are especially exposed to these notices, which can be hard to understand and even harder to contest without representation.
This latest case is likely to become part of a growing test of how aggressively the federal government can wield administrative fines as an immigration enforcement tool. For now, attorneys and advocates are urging anyone who receives a civil penalty notice to keep careful records of service dates and immigration filings, and to talk to a lawyer about available administrative and judicial options before the clock on the new deadlines runs out.
