Casa De Md. v. Mayorkas
| Decision Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 8:20-cv-2118-PX |
| Parties | CASA DE MARYLAND, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiffs brought this suit nearly three years ago to challenge the validity of newly enacted asylum applicant rules issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) under the previous presidential administration. On September 11, 2020, this Court preliminarily enjoined DHS from enforcing several parts of the challenged rules against the members of Plaintiff organizations Casa de Maryland, Inc. (“CASA”) and Asylum Seekers Advocacy Project (“ASAP”). ECF Nos. 69 & 70. Thereafter, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the entire challenged rule scheme. See Asylumworks v. Mayorkas, 590 F.Supp.3d 11 (D.D.C. 2022) (“Asylumworks”).
The vacatur of the challenged rules renders them a nullity. Consequently, Defendants Secretary of Homeland Security and DHS (collectively, “Defendants” or the “Government”) now move to dissolve the preliminary injunction and dismiss the Complaint as moot. ECF No. 202. Plaintiffs contend that the matter is not moot, and that this Court should grant them summary judgment or alternatively hold Defendants in contempt for failure to comply with the Court's preliminary injunction. ECF No 189. The motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion and DENIES Plaintiffs' motion as moot.
On July 21, 2020, five non-profit organizations challenged the validity of DHS rules that changed the employment authorization document (“EAD”) application process for asylum seekers (“2020 Asylum EAD Rules” or “2020 Rules”). ECF No. 1.[2] The Complaint averred that the 2020 Rules violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (“FVRA”), and the Homeland Security Act (“HSA”). Id. Plaintiffs requested vacatur of the rules and companion injunctive relief. Id. Three days later, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the 2020 Rules from taking effect. ECF No. 23.
On September 11, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion. ECF Nos. 69 & 70. After finding that CASA and ASAP maintained representational standing to challenge six of the 2020 rule changes, the Court preliminarily enjoined Defendants from enforcing those new rules solely as to CASA and ASAP members. ECF No. 69 at 64-66.
Thereafter, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 107, 127, 130. While those motions were pending, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the 2020 Asylum EAD Rules in their entirety. See Asylumworks v. Mayorkas, 590 F.Supp.3d 11 (D.D.C. 2022). The parties then agreed that their cross-motions for summary judgment should be dismissed as moot, but Plaintiffs requested additional time to assess whether a case or controversy still existed considering the Asylumworks rules vacatur. ECF No. 170.
This Court next issued an updated briefing schedule to allow the parties to file new dispositive motions. ECF No. 175. On August 26, 2022, the Government sought to stay the briefing schedule until the Asylumworks court resolved a post-judgment motion challenging the Government's compliance with the Court's vacatur order. ECF No. 185. Specifically, the Asylumworks Plaintiffs sought an injunction compelling the Government to update the online version of the Code of Federal Regulations (“e-CFR”), the Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (“Form I-765”), and the Form I-765 instructions so as to reflect the vacatur of the 2020 Rules. Asylumworks, No. 20-3815-BAH (D.D.C.), at ECF No. 47 (July 22, 2022).
The Government also wanted this Court to wait until the resolution of a pending motion in Rosario v. USCIS, No. 15-813-JLR (W.D. Wash.) (“Rosario”), a class action that challenged the Government's compliance with the pre-2020 requirement to process EAD applications within 30 days (“30-day Rule”). See Rosario v. USCIS, 365 F.Supp.3d 1156 (W.D. Wash. 2018). Because Asylumworks vacated the 2020 Rules, the 30-day Rule is reinstated. Asylumworks, 590 F.Supp.3d at 26. Accordingly, the Rosario Plaintiffs moved to hold the Government in contempt of the court's 2018 injunction enforcing the 30-day processing deadline. Rosario, No. 15-813-JLR (W.D. Wash.), at ECF No. 196 (Aug. 25, 2022). In light of that motion, and the Asylumworks motion to enforce the judgment, the Government requested the stay because “most if not all of Plaintiffs' grievances are currently being litigated” in Asylumworks and Rosario. ECF No. 185 at 11.
On September 9, 2022, Plaintiffs opposed the motion to stay and renewed their motion for summary judgment, urging that this Court, too, should vacate the already vacated 2020 Rules. ECF No. 189. Plaintiffs maintain that their claims are not mooted by the Asylumworks vacatur because the Government has not modified the requisite forms and instructions to reflect the repeal of the rules. Id. at 5. Plaintiffs also maintain that their claims are not moot because Defendants are not complying with the 30-day Rule. Id. Thus, according to Plaintiffs, neither Asylumworks nor Rosario afford asylum applicants “complete relief.” Id. at 20.
Since then, the Government has modified the Form I-765 and the accompanying instructions, as well as the USCIS website, to remove references to the vacated 2020 Asylum EAD Rules. See USCIS Released Revised Editions of Forms I-589 and I-765, USCIS (Sept. 7, 2022), https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-released-revised-editions-of-forms-i-589- and-i-765. The Government also published a final rule in the e-CFR which reflects its adherence to the vacatur of the 2020 Asylum EAD Rules. Asylum Application, and Employment Authorization for Applicants; Implementation of Vacatur, 87 Fed.Reg. 57795 (Sept. 22, 2022).
Thereafter, the Government filed its motion to dismiss the Complaint and dissolve the preliminary injunction, arguing the claims are fully mooted. ECF No. 202. Plaintiffs disagree, claiming that this case is not mooted because the Government continues to violate the 30-day Rule as to its members, and the Form I-765 instructions still generate confusion about which rules apply. ECF No. 210 at 3-4 (citing ECF No. 189-1 at 10-11).
A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) “addresses whether [the plaintiff] has a right to be in the district court at all and whether the court has the power to hear and dispose of his claim.” Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999).
If “a claim fails to allege facts upon which the court may base jurisdiction,” the court must dismiss the action. Davis v. Thompson, 367 F.Supp.2d 792, 799 (D. Md. 2005).
In determining whether jurisdiction exists, “the court may look beyond the pleadings and the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue.” Khoury v. Meserve, 268 F.Supp.2d 600, 606 (D. Md. 2003) (quoting Capitol Leasing Co. v. FDIC, 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the defendant contends that the complaint “simply fails to allege facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction can be based,” the Court construes the complaint facts as true and most favorably to the plaintiff. Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219. Whether the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction must be decided before reaching the merits of the case. Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 422 (4th Cir. 1999).
The doctrine of mootness derives from Article III of the Constitution, which limits federal court jurisdiction to “actual cases or controversies.” Porter v. Clarke, 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). A case becomes moot if, at any point during the litigation, “the issues presented are no longer ‘live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). Where changed circumstances remove any possibility that the plaintiff continues to suffer a “personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct.. .likely to be redressed by the requested relief,” the claim is mooted and dismissal is warranted. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90-91 (2013); see also Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) () (internal citations omitted).
Here Plaintiffs have obtained all relief that they requested in the Complaint. Centrally, Plaintiffs contended that the 2020 Asylum EAD Rules must be vacated-a remedy that the Asylumworks Court has granted and which applies to all asylum applicants, including those whom the organizational Plaintiffs serve. ECF No. 1 at 53. And because the time for the Government to appeal the Asylumworks decision is long past, the vacatur constitutes a final order, which means that the 2020 Rules at the heart of Plaintiffs' Complaint no longer have any force and effect. See Akiachak Native Cmty. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 827 F.3d 100, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial