Galvez v. Cuccinelli
| Decision Date | 05 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. C19-0321RSL |
| Citation | 492 F.Supp.3d 1169 |
| Parties | Leobardo MORENO GALVEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth T. CUCCINELLI, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Aaron Korthuis, Matt Adams, Meghan E. Casey, Leila Kang, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, WA, Olivia Fiona Saldana Schulman, Tim Henry Warden-Hertz, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiffs.
Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, US Army Litigation Center, Arlington, VA, Matt Waldrop, US Attorney's Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Dkt. #64 and #66. The named plaintiffs represent a class of young immigrants who were determined by the courts of the State of Washington to have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by one or both of their parents. They sought classification as Special Immigrant Juveniles ("SIJ") as a pathway to lawful permanent residency in the United States. On July 17, 2019, the Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants - the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), the individuals in charge of DHS and USCIS, and the director of the National Benefits Center – from enforcing a 2018 change in policy that, plaintiffs argued, unlawfully denied them SIJ status. The Court also required USCIS to promptly adjudicate or readjudicate all class members’ SIJ petitions. Plaintiffs now seek summary judgment on their various challenges to USCIS’ actions and the entry of an injunction permanently enjoining the agency from unreasonably delaying the adjudication of SIJ petitions in the State of Washington. Defendants seek judgment in their favor, arguing that the matter is moot and/or that the 2018 policy was lawful and lawfully implemented. Defendants also argue that they are not obligated to comply with the statutory deadline for adjudicating SIJ petitions and that plaintiffs have failed to show that a permanent injunction is warranted.
Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, 2 the Court finds as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
Congress created the SIJ status in 1990 as a means of alleviating "hardships experienced by some dependents of United States juvenile courts by providing qualified aliens with the opportunity to apply for special immigrant classification and lawful permanent resident status, with possibility of becoming citizens of the United States in the future." 58 Fed. Reg. 42843, 42844 (Aug. 12, 1993). SIJ status is available if:
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). If granted, SIJ status provides a pathway to lawful permanent residency and, ultimately, citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255, 1427. When an immigrant applies for SIJ status, USCIS must grant or deny the application within 180 days. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2).
When SIJ status was first recognized as a form of immigration relief, the applicant had to be "eligible for long-term foster care," which the agency interpreted as requiring a determination "by the juvenile court that family reunification is no longer a viable option." 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(a). Agency regulations clarified that eligible juveniles were aliens "under twenty-one years of age." 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)(1).
In 2008, Congress passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"), amending the SIJ statute in three significant ways. Pub. L. No. 110-457 § 235(d), 122 Stat. 5044 (2008). First, the TVPRA expanded the universe of immigrants would could obtain SIJ status. It removed the requirement that applicants be eligible for long-term foster care, broadening the statute to apply instead to juveniles for whom "reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law." Id. § 235(d)(1)(B) ( 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) ). It also made SIJ status available to juveniles who had been "legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court" in addition to those who had been "declared dependent on a juvenile court." Second, the TVPRA clarified that an applicant's eligibility for SIJ status is dependent on the juvenile's age at the time he or she applied for SIJ status rather than at the time the application was processed. Id. § 235(d)(6). Finally, the amendments removed the requirement that the agency "expressly consent" to the state court's dependency order, instead requiring "consent[ ] to the grant of special immigration juvenile status." Id. § 235(d)(1)(B). USCIS exercises its "consent" authority by verifying whether the SIJ petition is bona fide, "meaning that the juvenile court order was not sought primarily to obtain the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" but "rather to obtain relief from abuse or neglect." Dkt. #25 at 15.
Following enactment of the TVPRA, a petitioner for SIJ status must be (a) under twenty-one years of age, (b) unmarried, (c) declared dependent on a juvenile court or placed in the custody of a state agency or individual appointed by the court, and (d) the subject of state court findings that (i) reunification with one or both parents is not viable because of abuse, abandonment, neglect, or similar basis under state law and (ii) it is not in the juvenile's best interests to be returned to his or her country of origin. USCIS’ review of SIJ petitions was generally guided by the statutory elements.
In the summer of 2017, however, USCIS began holding SIJ applications for individuals between the ages of 18 and 21. USCIS had centralized adjudication of SIJ applications in November 2016 and was awaiting legal guidance from the USCIS Office of Chief Counsel ("OCC") regarding a new policy that would affect SIJ adjudications for that age group. The new guidance was issued in February 2018 and specifies that, in order for a state court to be one of "competent jurisdiction" to make the necessary SIJ findings, the court must have the power not only to determine whether reunification with a parent is appropriate or viable, but also "to order reunification, if warranted." Dkt. #4-2 at 2. A USCIS spokesperson acknowledged the practical effect of this new policy in April 2018:
Since most courts cannot place a child back in the custody of their parent once the child reaches the age of majority (as determined by state [sic] and in most instances that is age 18), those state courts do not have power and authority to make the reunification finding for purposes of SIJ eligibility.
In a subsection entitled "Expeditious adjudication," Congress mandated that "[a]ll applications for special immigrant status under section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) ) shall be adjudicated by the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than 180 days after the date on which the application is filed." 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2). As of September 24, 2018, the National Benefits Center, which handles all SIJ petitions, had a backlog of 32,518 SIJ petitions, with 23,589 of them pending for more than 180 days. Plaintiff Moreno Galvez had to wait more than two years for his petition to be adjudicated. USCIS took almost eight months to adjudicate plaintiff Vicente Ramos’ petition. Plaintiff Muñoz Olivera's petition took over a year and a half after to be adjudicated.
After reviewing Washington law and the factual circumstances surrounding the SIJ petitions of the three named plaintiffs, the Court found (i) that the imposition of the "reunification" requirement was inconsistent with the SIJ statute's plain language, exceeded the agency's authority, and was unreasonable, (ii) that plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their claims that USCIS's new policy was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation, (iii) that the agency's new policy created a binding norm and compelled agency adjudicators to withhold consent to SIJ status in certain circumstances and was therefore subject to the notice and comment rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and (iv) that USCIS had failed to adjudicate plaintiffs’ SIJ petitions within the 180-day statutory deadline imposed by Congress and plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their unreasonable delay claim. The Court further found that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction preventing USCIS from enforcing the "reunification" requirement and delaying adjudication of SIJ petitions. The harms identified included emotional and psychological harms, the loss of eligibility for SIJ status, and/or the delay in obtaining the benefits that go along with that status (such as exemption from a variety of grounds for removal, release from USCIS custody, access to federally-funded education and preferential...
To continue reading
Request your trial