AILA lawsuit

[Ermehgerdd 172]

Just now, HRQX said:

Note that it's just a Memorandum Order. It was issued so the merits of the case are assessed later at trial and because the 09/30 DV deadline was fast approaching.

I'm well aware, as I said, the Judge said they were *likely* to succeed. Not that they already have.

[ultrasoul 51]

https://www.law360.com/articles/1307817/dc-judge-shields-diversity-visa-winners-from-ban
 

Law360 (September 4, 2020, 6:29 PM EDT) -- A D.C. federal judge on Friday temporarily barred the Trump administration from applying its visa ban to foreign citizens who won green cards in the Diversity Visa lottery, finding that the U.S. Department of State's refusal to process their visas is likely illegal.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta said the federal government had "unreasonably delayed processing" of green cards won by a group of lottery winners and their relatives, who had found themselves unable to secure visas to move to the U.S. under President Donald Trump's travel restrictions.

The judge ordered the government to "undertake good-faith efforts" to "expeditiously process and adjudicate" their green card applications by Sept. 30, the end of the government's fiscal year.

"The department is aware of the court's ruling and is reviewing the decision with the Department of Justice," a State Department spokesperson told Law360 on Saturday. 

The order came down in five consolidated lawsuits targeting Trump's April and June proclamations barring certain foreign citizens seeking green cards and work visas from abroad from entering the U.S. The plaintiffs — a group of over 1,000 American citizens with overseas relatives, U.S.-based employers, diversity lottery winners and foreign nationals with approved petitions for temporary worker visas — had argued that Trump had overstepped his authority when he blocked them from entering the U.S.

Judge Mehta was unconvinced that the proclamations were unconstitutional.

His decision deferred to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Trump v. Hawaii , where the justices upheld Trump's previous travel ban against foreigners from a handful of countries. By upholding the ban — which immigration advocates decried as a "Muslim ban" — the high court held that the president may block foreigners from entering the U.S. if he finds that their entry is "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

"Diversity visa lottery winners are people who have come to this nation, like millions before, to seek a better life for themselves and their families, and to pursue the American Dream. They do not deserve to be caricatured as common criminals, or to be used as a political wedge issue," Judge Mehta wrote. "But for the same reasons that the court in Trump v. Hawaii rejected a similar challenge based on purported religious animus, the court does so here, too."

When Trump set the April travel restrictions, he said they were in response to high unemployment within the U.S., and he "amplified" that reasoning in the June ban, Judge Mehta said.

The plaintiffs pushed back against Trump's rationale and provided evidence that new immigrants wouldn't displace American workers, according to court filings. But "however persuasive" those arguments were in a policy forum, the courts are "decidedly constrained," the judge said.

"If the president were to act on 'plainly false pretenses,' as plaintiffs fear, Congress possesses ample powers to right that wrong. The scope of judicial review is circumscribed," he said.

However, Judge Mehta was swayed by claims that the State Department unlawfully halted progress on the foreign citizens' applications based on Trump's orders. Though the orders will prevent the applicants from entering the U.S. through the end of the year, they don't prevent the State Department from issuing visas. Therefore, the individuals argued that the State Department had enacted its own "no visa policy" outside the normal rulemaking processes, according to the order.

The government argued there was no secret policy suspending the applications, but Judge Mehta saw otherwise.

"Defendants, through a cluster of guidance documents, cables and directives, have ordered consular offices and embassies to cease processing and issuing visas for otherwise qualified applicants," he wrote. "That is paradigmatic final agency action."

Further, the State Department had provided "no justification" for why it had suspended visa processing, the judge said. In the case of the lottery winners, the State Department had also failed to explain why it had stopped work on their visas. If the lottery winners don't receive their visas by Sept. 30, immigration law dictates that they lose the visas entirely.

The State Department can't "effectively extinguish" this year's lottery program "by simply sitting on its hands letting all pending diversity visa applications time out," the judge said.

Though Judge Mehta ordered relief for the diversity lottery winners, he declined to do so for the other visa seekers, including those requesting work visas and green cards through family members.

The other visa seekers were "likely" to win on their claims against the State Department, but the court couldn't order relief for them, the judge said.

"The family-visa plaintiffs identify vast harms stemming from being separated from their family members," the judge said. "The court has no doubt that this separation has been devastating ... but this harm would continue to flow from the proclamations' ban on entry, even if the court were to grant relief."

The judge ordered the government to update the court on Sept. 25 on how many diversity visas have yet to be issued. The court will reconsider during that briefing whether to order the State Department to reserve any unprocessed diversity visas for the next year, the order said.

The Justice Action Center's Karen Tumlin, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said in a statement that diversity visa applicants can "finally" exhale.

"This court decision will result in these immigrants being able to pursue their dreams in the United States, and help boost our economy," Tumlin said. "We're disappointed, though, that the court didn't block the ban for our other plaintiffs who are suffering. But this isn't over. We won't rest until the entirety of the immigration ban is stopped."

The diversity visa winners and their beneficiaries are represented by Rafael Ureña, Curtis Lee Morrison and Abadir Barre of the Law Office of Rafael Ureña in the Mohammed and Fonjong suits, Charles H. Kuck of Kuck Immigration Partners LLCin the Aker suit, Jesse M. Bless of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Karen C. Tumlin and Esther H. Sung of the Justice Action Center, Laboni A. Hoq of the Law Office of Laboni A. Hoq, Stephen Manning, Nadia Dahab and Tess Hellgren of the Innovation Law Lab and Andrew J. Pincus, Matthew D. Ingber and Cleland B. Welton II of Mayer Brown LLP in the Gomez suit, and Geoffrey Forney of Wasden Banias LLC in the Panda suit.

The government is represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla, James Wen and Thomas Benton York of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division and Robert A. Caplen and William Chang of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.

The case is Gomez et al. v. Trump et al., case number 1:20-cv-01419, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

[ultrasoul 51]

On 9/5/2020 at 2:52 AM, Ermehgerdd said:

Pretty stoked at Judge  Mehta's injunction order today, he seemed to be tracking on that entry vs. visa issuance argument 😂... Congrats to all the 2020DV winners who now have hope to receive their visas!!

 

Excited to see how the rest of this case develops and hope it provides relief to the rest of the plaintiffs!

Unfortunately your excitement is misplaced. Judge Mehta did not extend the Sept 30 deadline. It is more than likely those who haven’t been issued a DV visa won’t be getting one as Sept 30 is only a few weeks away and most embassies still aren’t holding any IV interviews

Edited September 8, 2020 by ultrasoul

[lchris 6]

On 8/30/2020 at 1:53 PM, Lucky Cat said:

I think the suit will go nowhere. The POTUS has broad authority by law  in immigration matters.

i talked with this girl, it did go somewhere and they won. she got her visa faster than sonic could dash around the world

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

3 minutes ago, lchris said:

i talked with this girl, it did go somewhere and they won. she got her visa faster than sonic could dash around the world

That's great!!  Thanks for sharing.

[Quarknase 1,072]

38 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

That's great!!  Thanks for sharing.

We sued too - different lawsuit, challenging PP 10014 and it’s extension. Judge ordered a PI, the PP doesn’t exist for us. Many plaintiffs already entered the US after successful interview and visa issuance. Remaining ones have interviews scheduled throughout the coming month. That arguable broad authority is for foreign issues, while the labor market (reason for ban) is a domestic issue.

[HRQX 4,145]

2 hours ago, Quarknase said:

We sued too - different lawsuit, challenging PP 10014 and it’s extension. Judge ordered a PI, the PP doesn’t exist for us.

I assume the ruling is limited to the Plaintiffs of that suit. Could you share the case name?

[Quarknase 1,072]

7 hours ago, HRQX said:

I assume the ruling is limited to the Plaintiffs of that suit. Could you share the case name?

Absolutely so. And yes, relief for plaintiffs only - meant to indicate that by “us”, but I certainly could have been more clear.

YoungvTrump (now YoungvBiden) is the case.

[HRQX 4,145]

15 hours ago, Quarknase said:

That arguable broad authority is for foreign issues, while the labor market (reason for ban) is a domestic issue.

The PI does indirectly mention that the topic of whether or not POTUS can base it off a "domestic issue" hasn't been definitively decided at the SCOTUS level but has been weighed on by the 9th Circuit: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2020cv07183/367277/34/0.pdf?ts=1607768588 Page 25

"To be sure, the district court in Gomez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163352 at *77-78 held otherwise (“even if Plaintiffs’ foreign/domestic dichotomy is a practically feasible one, it does not follow that judicial deference is any less when the overarching purpose for the exclusion of aliens is domestic in nature ... [for] [t]he wisdom of the President’s decision to address those changed circumstances [caused by the COVID-19 pandemic] by restricting the entry of certain classes of aliens is a policy decision the judiciary is not well equipped to evaluate”). But this Court is bound by Ninth Circuit law."

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

16 hours ago, Quarknase said:

That arguable broad authority is for foreign issues, while the labor market (reason for ban) is a domestic issue.

Really?  Reference?  The law seem to be pretty broad to me.

 

"n § 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That provision authorizes the President “to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whose entry he “finds ... would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”"

Edited January 29, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[HRQX 4,145]

16 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

Really?  Reference?

 

"n § 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That provision authorizes the President “to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whose entry he “finds ... would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”"

Before the 9th Circuit’s very recent more moderate turn, the Circuit was arguably the most liberal Circuit. The district court referenced 9th Circuit decisions that occurred during that liberal period: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2020cv07183/367277/34/0.pdf?ts=1607768588

"As the Ninth Circuit explained in Doe v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050, 1067 (9th Cir. 2020), (“Doe #1”), in Hawaii III, “the President acted within the traditional spheres authorized by § 1182(f): in the context of international affairs and national security, and working in tandem with the congressional goals of vetting individuals from countries identified as threats through an agency review.  By contrast, the Proclamation here deals with a purely domestic economic problem: uncompensated healthcare costs in the United States ... [and, in this context] his power is more circumscribed when he addresses a purely domestic economic issue” (emphasis added).  See also Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the deferential standard of review applied in Trump v. Hawaii turned primarily on the Court’s recognition of the fundamental authority of the executive branch to manage our nation’s foreign policy and national security affairs without judicial interference”); NAM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182267 at *21 (“in contrast to the Muslim Proclamation that was before the Supreme Court in Hawaii III, the Proclamation here deals with a purely domestic economic issue — the loss of employment during a national pandemic ... [and] [t]his Court rejects the position that the Proclamation implicates the President’s foreign affairs powers simply because it affects immigration”)."

Edited January 29, 2021 by HRQX

[Quarknase 1,072]

5 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

Really?  Reference?

 

"n § 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That provision authorizes the President “to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whose entry he “finds ... would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”"

The case is still going and a final judgement hasn’t been made, but the order for preliminary injunction is posted here - the part you are questioning is on p24 ff.

https://curtismorrisonlaw.com/young-v-trump