This case is different from many of the other cases in the Travel Ban collection as it challenged the legality of the executive order as applied to lawful permanent residents, instead of arguing that the executive order was invalid on its face.

On January 30, 2017, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the U.S., represented by private counsel, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (in Atlanta). The plaintiff claimed that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents held him for questioning at the Atlanta International Airport, upon his arrival from a trip to Iraq, on January 29, 2017. The plaintiff further alleged that this questioning was performed pursuant to President Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1), prohibiting non-U.S. citizen nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from gaining entry to the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), CBP, and several agents and officers of these federal agencies were named as defendants.

The plaintiff, Mohammed Abdullah Tawfeeq, was born in Iraq, resettled in the U.S. as a refugee, and became a LPR in 2013. At the time the complaint was filed, Tawfeeq worked as the Manager of the International Desk for CNN. Tawfeeq was based at CNN's Atlanta bureau and traveled to the Middle East regularly for his work as a reporter.

The plaintiff argued that regardless of the validity of EO-1’s immediate suspension of “every entry to the U.S.” by individuals “visiting temporarily,” EO-1 facially violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of Procedural Due Process as applied to LPRs and green card holders returning after a brief trip abroad. The complaint stated that LPRs, like the plaintiff, were entitled to greater procedural protections under the INA than non-immigrant non-citizens. According to the complaint, the airport questioning on January 29, 2017, began with a CBP officer notifying Tawfeeq that he could be denied entry to the country as a result of recently signed EO-1. CBP officers questioned Tawfeeq about the purposes of his trip to Iraq, sent the plaintiff to secondary questioning, and made the plaintiff wait for over 30 minutes before informing him that he could enter the country.

The complaint described this screening procedure conducted by CBP as an “improper analysis” of whether the plaintiff was entitled to a “case-by-case” exception to EO-1. Despite the fact that Tawfeeq was told he could enter the country at the Atlanta Airport, he alleged that the INA required the CBP officials to conclude that: 1) EO-1 was inapplicable to the plaintiff as the President did not have authority under Section 212(f) of the INA to suspend entry to LPRs who do not meet statutorily specified disqualifying conditions (like engaging in illegal activity after departing the U.S.), and 2) as an LPR, Tawfeeq was not a non-citizen seeking “admission to the U.S” and was not a proper subject for screening procedures pursuant to EO-1. Tawfeeq argued that without an injunction from a federal court, the federal government could begin applying EO-1 to “bar or otherwise encumber” the return of LPRs to the U.S. and that this possibility threatened to harm the plaintiff personally as he regularly traveled internationally for his work as a journalist. In addition to the civil complaint, the plaintiff filed a petition for mandamus directing inspection of returning LPRs under the INA rather than under the Executive Order. The plaintiff also sought attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (5 U.S.C. §504 and 28 U.S.C. §2412(d).

The case was assigned to District Judge Timothy Batten. On February 1, 2017, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion to expedite proceedings. The government filed a motion to dismiss on February 7. Though the motion to dismiss is not accessible on PACER, the the plaintiff’s February 27 response to it indicates that the government argued that the claims were moot because of a White House Counsel memorandum that interpreted EO-1 to exclude LPRs, a DHS press release regarding the memorandum, and a federal district court order from Massachusetts declining to extend a temporary restraining order as a result of the memorandum.

District Judge Batten denied the motion to expedite proceedings in an order dated February 10, 2017. In that order, the district court cited the February 3 temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in the Washington v. Trump case. The district court explained that because the federal government was already enjoined from enforcing the “pertinent portions” of EO-1 and the plaintiff had not shown “immediate plans to leave the country,” expedited proceedings were unnecessary.

As discussed above, Tawfeeq responded to the government’s motion to dismiss on February 27, 2017 but due to developments in the Washington case, the President rescinded EO-1 and replaced it with a narrower order, Executive Order 13780 (EO-2).

On March 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint challenging EO-2’s Sections 1(g) which applied greater scrutiny to Iraqi nationals during the visa issuance/U.S. admissions process; 2 which temporarily suspended entry into the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen; and 4 which provided that applications for visa/admissions/any immigration benefit by Iraqi nationals should be "subjected to thorough review". Specifically, Tawfeeq alleged that no section of EO-2 removed Iraqi LPR's from the "additional scrutiny" and "thorough review" requirements so that like EO-1, this order violated the INA, APA, and his Procedural Due Process rights. Tawfeeq sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a writ of mandamus instructing DHS to instruct its employees inspecting non-citizens at U.S. points of entry to exclude returning Iraqi resident immigrants from the new screening terms under the EO.

On April 24, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The parties filed a joint preliminary report and discovery plan on July 7. Later in July, the parties noted their disagreement over the discovery deadlines, and discovery was stayed pending the district court's ruling on the April 24 motion to dismiss.

On August 11, 2017, District Judge Batten granted the government’s April 24 motion to dismiss the amended complaint. First, the court held that Tawfeeq lacked standing to challenge Section 1(g) which the plaintiff acknowledged would only apply to him if erroneously implemented, and the court would not presume that the law would be erroneously implemented. Second, the plaintiff’s challenge to Section 2 was also dismissed on standing grounds as it did not apply to Iraqi nationals or LPRs. Lastly, the court determined that Tawfeeq’s challenge to Section 4 was too speculative to grant standing. Finally, the court determined that the revocation of EO-1 rendered Tawfeeq's claims challenging its application to LPRs moot. 309 F. Supp. 3d 1350. This order ended the case.

Ava Morgenstern - 02/22/2017
Julie Aust - 08/13/2017
Esteban Woo Kee - 11/19/2021


compress summary