On June 25, 2019, five asylum seekers from Angola, Cuba, and El Salvador filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Attorney General under the Refugee Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a); Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c), (d); and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The plaintiffs, represented by the International Refugee Assistance Program and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, sought declarative, injunctive, and monetary relief. The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump Administration issued a set of instructions (the "Lesson Plan") on April 30, 2019, to asylum officers that were designed to turn back as many asylum seekers as possible. The Lesson Plan allegedly made it far more difficult for asylum seekers to pass their “credible fear interviews.” If an asylum seeker is found to lack “credible fear,” they may be unable to apply for asylum. The case was assigned to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On August 19, 2019, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed because it was not a legal issue over which the court could exercise its judicial authority because there was no evidence that enjoining the Lesson Plan would remedy plaintiffs' injuries and because the Lesson Plan was not subject to judicial review under the APA. Furthermore, the defendants contended that the Lesson Plan had no real impact on the credible fear process and that it was just a minor update to account for developments in the case law.
On September 5, 2019, the plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to summary judgment on the merits because the Lesson Plan was inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory scheme of the credible fear process and was in violation of the APA. With regards to the defendants’ contention that the Lesson Plan had no real impact, the plaintiffs rebutted that the record showed a significant change to policy. Judge Jackson held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment on October 22, 2019.
On March 5, 2020, Judge Jackson issued an order staying the case pending resolution of appeal in
Grace v. Barr, No. 19-5013 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Judge Jackson stated that
Grace v. Barr presented various questions regarding the meaning of terms under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e), the credible fear interview statute, such as the meaning of "implementation," "implement," and "written policy directive, written policy guideline, or written procedure." Judge Jackson found that because similar questions of law are relevant in the current case, it should be stayed pending resolution in the D.C. Circuit. More information about
Grace v. Barr can be found
here.
After the D.C. Circuit released its opinion in
Grace, Judge Jackson granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on October 31, 2020. 2020 WL 6392824. Applying the Chevron deference framework, Judge Jackson concluded that USCIS unlawfully required screening officers to make credible fear determinations in a manner that is "inconsistent with the two-stage asylum eligibility framework that the INA plainly establishe[d]." Therefore, Judge Jackson declared that the provisions of the Lesson Plan that conflicted with the INA were unlawful. Because the unlawful parts couldn't be severed from the rest of the document, Judge Jackson vacated the entire Lesson Plan. Finally, judge Jackson enjoined the credible fear determinations previously made pursuant to the plan, and ordered that these plaintiffs be provided a new credible fear screening.
On December 15, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court. As of December 19, the case is ongoing.
Aaron Gurley - 03/16/2020
Gabrielle Simeck - 12/19/2020
compress summary
