University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name P.K. v. Tillerson IM-DC-0031
Docket / Court 1:17-cv-01533-TSC ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Refugee/Visa Order
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Northern California
National Immigration Law Center
Case Summary
On August 3, 2017 the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Law Center filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit challenged the State Department's practice of denying immigrant visas to diversity ... read more >
On August 3, 2017 the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Law Center filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit challenged the State Department's practice of denying immigrant visas to diversity lottery winners from countries affected by President Trump's March 6 Executive Order (EO). The diversity visa program awards visas to nationals from countries that have historically sent low numbers of immigrants to the United States.

On Mar. 6, 2017 President Trump issued an EO that barred entry to nationals from six majority-Muslim countries - Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. Litigation ensued immediately, and the lower courts initially enjoined the government from implementing the order (see IRAP v. Trump and Hawaii v. Trump). However, on Jun. 26, the Supreme Court stayed the nationwide injunctions and allowed the order to become effective, except as it applied to immigrants who could establish a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

Plaintiffs were nationals from countries affected by the EO who had been selected as diversity visa lottery winners for FY2017 but could not establish a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. By statute, the State Department was required to issue visas to 2017 winners by Sept. 30; winners whose visas were not issued by that deadline lost their slots in the program. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that "nevertheless, the State Department has adopted a policy directing consular officials to deny diversity visas to nationals from the countries barred from entry by the Executive Order." The complaint argued that this practice violated the Administrative Procedure Act and "statutes and regulations requiring the issuance of immigrant visas to diversity visa lottery winners who are statutorily eligible." Plaintiffs also argued that defendants' practice conflated entry with visa issuance. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a write of mandamus requiring consular officials to issue plaintiffs' immigrant visas. Alternatively, plaintiffs requested that the court order the State Department to reserve any unused FY2017 visa numbers for processing following any decision by the Supreme Court's in IRAP v. Trump.

The case was assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. On Aug. 18, defendants responded to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. In their response, defendants argued that plaintiffs' claims were precluded by the Supreme Court's stay in IRAP v. Trump, which allowed the government to implement the EO. Plaintiffs argued that the State Department's decision to deny visas to certain foreign nationals was simply the government implementing the Mar. 6 EO. In late August, plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of their preliminary injunction motion that included several updates to plaintiffs' situations.

On Sept. 29, Judge Chutkan issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and writ of mandamus. Judge Chutkan agreed with defendants that the Supreme Court's Jun. 26 decision precluded the court from issuing a preliminary injunction. However, she did grant plaintiffs' alternative request for relief. Consequently, the court ordered the State Department to report by Oct. 15 on the number of unused visas for FY2017 and to hold those visas plaintiffs in the event that the Supreme Court struck down the EO.

On Oct. 10, the Supreme Court issued the following order in IRAP v. Trump: "We granted certiorari in this case to resolve a challenge to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780. Because that provision of the Order expired by its own terms on September 24, 2017, the appeal no longer presents a live case or controversy. Following our established practice in such cases, the judgment is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss as moot the challenge to Executive Order. No. 13,780. We express no view on the merits. Justice Sotomayor dissents from the order vacating the judgment below and would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted." Subsequently, defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case on Oct. 20, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision rendered it moot. Plaintiffs filed their reply on Nov. 13. In their response, plaintiffs argued that the case was not moot because the court could still provide relief to plaintiffs.

This case is ongoing.

Jamie Kessler - 11/20/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
General
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Immigration/Border
Admission - criteria
Admission - procedure
Visas - criteria
Visas - procedures
Language
Arabic
National Origin/Ethnicity
Arab/Afgani/Middle Eastern
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ยงยง 551 et seq.
Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Defendant(s) United States Department of State
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are diversity lottery visa winners from countries covered by President Trump's travel ban and who do not have a bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Northern California
National Immigration Law Center
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Presidential Executive Order on Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities
White House
Date: Oct. 24, 2017
By: United States (United States)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats
www.whitehouse.gov
Date: Sep. 24, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Implementing Executive Order 13780 Following Supreme Court Ruling -- Guidance to Visa-Adjudicating Posts
Reuters
Date: Jun. 28, 2017
By: U.S. Department of State
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence
The White House
Date: Jun. 14, 2017
By: Donald Trump (White House)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States
Date: Mar. 6, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (President of the United States)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
The White House
Date: Feb. 1, 2017
By: Donald F. McGahn II, Counsel to the President (The White House)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Statement by Acting Attorney General Sally Yates
https://www.nytimes.com/
Date: 1/30/2017
By: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates (Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Statement By Secretary John Kelly on the Entry of Lawful Permanent Residents into the United States
https://www.dhs.gov/
Date: 1/29/2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (Department of Homeland Security)
Citation: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanent-residents-united-states
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  OLC Memo Re: Proposed Executive Order Entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: Curtis Gannon (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:17-cv-1533 (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0031-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Petition for Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-DC-0031-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Motion for Mandamus Relief [ECF# 2]
IM-DC-0031-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Request for a Preliminary Injunction and Mandamus Relief [ECF# 24]
IM-DC-0031-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Request for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 30]
IM-DC-0031-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/28/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
First Amended Petition for Mandamus and First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 46]
IM-DC-0031-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 50] (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0031-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 53]
IM-DC-0031-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 54]
IM-DC-0031-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 56]
IM-DC-0031-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Chutkan, Tanya Sue (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0031-0006 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Amdur, Spencer (New York)
IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008
Ayoub, Abed A. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0008
Cox, Justin Bryan (Georgia)
IM-DC-0031-0001 | IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York)
IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008
Khalaf, Samer E. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0001 | IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Michelman, Scott (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0001 | IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Minzner, Max J (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0001 | IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Price, Matthew E. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0001 | IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Rondon, Yolanda C. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008
Spitzer, Arthur (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0001 | IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Sung, Esther (California)
IM-DC-0031-0001 | IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Tumlin, Karen C. (California)
IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008
Wofsy, Cody H. (California)
IM-DC-0031-0001 | IM-DC-0031-0002 | IM-DC-0031-0004 | IM-DC-0031-0005 | IM-DC-0031-0008 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Dorsey, Catherine (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0003 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0003 | IM-DC-0031-0007 | IM-DC-0031-0009 | IM-DC-0031-0009
Platt, Steven (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0003 | IM-DC-0031-0007 | IM-DC-0031-0009 | IM-DC-0031-0009 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Press, Joshua S. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0003 | IM-DC-0031-0007 | IM-DC-0031-0009 | IM-DC-0031-0009 | IM-DC-0031-9000
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0003 | IM-DC-0031-0007 | IM-DC-0031-0009 | IM-DC-0031-0009
Reuveni, Erez (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0003 | IM-DC-0031-0007 | IM-DC-0031-0009 | IM-DC-0031-0009
Westwater, Gisela Ann (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0031-0003 | IM-DC-0031-0007

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -