This lawsuit, filed Feb. 13, 2017, challenged President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order barring legal immigrants and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US and barring Syrian refugees indefinitely. The complaint argued that in indefinitely barring Syrian refugees, the EO violated the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and exceeded executive power under Article II of the Constitution. This lawsuit argued that the EO effectuated President Trump's long-standing campaign promise of implementing a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," and that it unlawfully and unconstitutionally prevented the plaintiff, a Syrian refugee, from reuniting with his wife and daughter, who resided in Aleppo. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiff and his counsel, Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, filed the case in the Western District of Wisconsin, where it was immediately assigned to District Judge William M. Conley and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker.
The plaintiff was a Syrian Sunni Muslim asylee who, after fleeing to the United States in 2014 and being fully vetted by U.S. immigration authorities, was granted asylum status in 2016 because of the torture and religious persecution he had suffered in Syria. After being granted asylum in the U.S., the petitioner filed a derivative asylum application in 2016 in order to reunite with his wife and only surviving child, who remained in Syria. The petitioner claimed that his derivative asylum application had cleared the security vetting process and had been returned to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center for final processing before it was halted by Trump's EO on January 27, 2017.
The plaintiff filed a motion to proceed anonymously in order to protect his wife and daughter from harm that they stand to suffer in Aleppo, where they currently reside, should the plaintiff's identity be revealed.
Along with the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and summary judgment.
On Feb. 13, 2017, Judge Conley issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. In the same order, Judge Conley ordered the government to file a response by Feb. 17, 2017 informing the court of: 1) the current status of the plaintiff's derivative asylum request; 2) whether the government continued processing derivative asylee/refugee petitions for Syrian nationals after the January 27 EO; and 3) if not, whether the government took the position that the preliminary injunction issued by the court in
State of Washington v. Trump enjoined the EO's enforcement as to the processing of derivative asylee/refugee petitions for Syrian nationals. Upon receipt of these filings, the court said it would determine the next steps.
On Feb. 17, the government filed a response to Judge Conley's Feb. 13 order (documents not available), and the court issued an order denying the motion for preliminary injunction as moot. A telephonic status conference was set for Mar. 22, 2017.
On Mar. 6, 2017, after adverse developments in Washington v. Trump, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780.
On Mar. 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against all defendants and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Judge William M. Conley set a telephone status conference for that day, and at the conference found that the plaintiff was at great risk of suffering irreparable harm were the TRO to be denied. The court then granted the TRO as it applies to plaintiff John Doe, noting that "while defendants object to the entry of temporary injunctive relief, they argue during the hearing that the executive order may not even apply to plaintiff's asylum relative petition, thus ameliorating any harm to the government, or at least any harm caused by the brief period covered by this temporary restraining order." This was the first temporary restraining order to be granted in a case about the Mar. 6 Executive Order. The court ordered the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction by Mar. 16, the plaintiffs to reply by Mar. 20; it scheduled an in-person hearing for Mar. 21.
On Mar. 13, John Doe filed a series of redacted declarations attesting to his experiences with USCIS and the asylum process.
On Mar. 17, the parties filed a joint stipulation to reschedule the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion and to preserve the extant TRO. On Mar. 24, the plaintiff filed a second motion to reschedule, which the court granted on Mar. 27. The plaintiffs' reply brief in support of the PI motion is now due Apr. 28. Upon receipt of the brief, the court will schedule a hearing on or after May 1. The Mar. 10 TRO will remain in effect through the hearing on the motion.
On Mar. 29, the government moved for leave to file a response to the plaintiffs' statement of facts. The court granted this motion on the same day.
On Apr. 28, the plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of the motion for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction, as well as a notice of voluntary dismissal.
On May 1, the case closed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) without further order of the court.
Many documents in this case are unavailable.
Julie Aust - 05/01/2017
compress summary
