COVID-19 Summary: The SPLC, Innovation Law Lab, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. and Santa Fe Dreamers Project filed for an emergency temporary restraining order challenging the continued operation of the immigration courts despite the current public health crisis. On April 1, 2020, Judge Karin J. Immergut denied the plaintiffs' motion, finding the relief requested to be too attenuated from the claims underlying the plaintiffs' initial complaint. On July 31, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendants then filed a motion for reconsideration on September 4, which was denied on September 15.
On December 18, 2019, six immigration legal service providers filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging that the federal government had manipulated the immigration adjudication system in a way that makes it virtually impossible for asylum seekers to win their cases. The organizations (Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Innovation Law Lab, Santa Fe Dreamers Project, and Southern Poverty Law Center), sued President Trump, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), under the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Represented by Innovation Law Lab, Southern Poverty Law Center, and private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged violations of the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as provisions of the INA and the APA. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had abused their authority to perpetuate “asylum-free zones”—immigration court jurisdictions where asylum is virtually impossible to win, thus nullifying the U.S. asylum statutory scheme. The plaintiffs also claimed that by burdening the immigration courts with a backlog of more than a million cases, the defendants had undermined fairness in the system and impaired the INA’s case-by-case decision-making process. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that by implementing new performance metrics for immigration judges (the Metrics Policy) and a rapid-removal family docketing directive (the FAMU Directive), the defendants had impaired the impartiality of immigration judges and undermined the fairness of proceedings for recently-arrived families. As immigration legal service providers, the plaintiffs stated that the defendants’ efforts had denied them a fair forum in which to vindicate their organization missions.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 20, 2020.
On March 27, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In their request, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ actions in response to the pandemic had turned the immigration court system into a public health hazard. Specifically, they claimed that the defendants were continuing to require attorneys, respondents, judges, and staff to appear in person at many immigration courts, refusing to extend deadlines despite the danger associated with compliance, failing to provide adequate notice of emergency court closures and procedures, and ordering immigration judges to fast-track cases to completion (i.e. deportation) in the absence of respondents and counsel.
The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction under the All Writs Act to require the defendants to take reasonable steps to the protect public health in the immigration courts, including: no longer compelling respondents to appear in person or holding hearings without the consent of the respondent or their counsel, no longer invoking in absentia procedures to order removal in cases where respondents fail to appear, tolling deadlines, waiving certain filing requirements, and allowing attorneys not to appear in person without being held in contempt.
The same day, the case was reassigned to Judge Karin J. Immergut.
A group of former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ request for a TRO on March 30, 2020.
On April 1, 2020, Judge Immergut denied the plaintiffs’ motion. In an April 2 order, she explained that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was too attenuated from the claims alleged in their complaint to sustain their burden for a temporary injunction under the All Writs Act. Judge Immergut also noted that the defendants demonstrated that they had taken significant steps to reduce in-person contacts and modify immigration court functions in the wake of the pandemic. Consequently, she did not find it necessary to grant the sweeping relief sought by the plaintiffs.
On July 31, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims that sought enjoinder of “asylum-free zones”—i.e. immigration courts with unusually high rates of denials for asylum applications— for lack of jurisdiction. 2020 WL 4431682. However, all of the remaining claims were allowed to proceed.
The defendants sought reconsideration on September 4. They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from or relating to removal proceedings. The defendants also claimed that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied on September 15, as it repeated and expounded upon arguments previously made without a new basis for reconsideration. The district court also noted that it was bound by Ninth Circuit precedent,
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, which recognized organizational standing for immigration services organizations when they can establish their own injury. The court also found that it had jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' asserted injuries did not arise from any removal proceeding and were not cognizable under the petition-for-review process.
The case is ongoing.
Sam Kulhanek - 04/02/2020
Averyn Lee - 09/17/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/17/2020
compress summary
