Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf
Decision Date | 29 September 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-05883-JSW |
Citation | 491 F.Supp.3d 520 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Chad F. WOLF, et al., Defendants. |
Chelsea B. Davis, Naomi Ariel Igra, Brian Joseph Stretch, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jesse Matthew Bless, Pro Hac Vice, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Samina M. Bharmal, Pro Hac Vice, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Immigrant Legal Resource Center, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, International Rescue Committee, OneAmerica, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
Chelsea B. Davis, Naomi Ariel Igra, Brian Joseph Stretch, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA, Samina M. Bharmal, Pro Hac Vice, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Asian Counseling and Referral Service.
Julie Straus Harris, Bradley Craigmyle, Charles E.T. Roberts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
Re: Dkt. No. 27
Now before the Court for consideration is the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiffs1 , eight non-profit organizations that provide a variety of "services benefitting low-income applicants for immigration benefits." Compl. ¶¶ 7, 14-21; see generally Dkt. Nos. 27-4 through 24-7, 27-10, and 27-12 through 27-14: Declarations of Lawrence Benito (ICIRR), Olga Byrne (IRC), Michael Byun (ACRS), Jeff Chenoweth (CLINIC), Michael Smith (EBSC), Melissa Rodgers (ILRC), Angelica Salas (CHIRLA), and Rich Stolz (One America); see also Docket No. 95 ( ).
Defendants are Chad Wolf ("Mr. Wolf"), in his capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), DHS, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli ("Mr. Cuccinelli"), in his capacity as Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, and USCIS.2
Plaintiffs move to enjoin implementation of the USCIS Fee Schedule & Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 85 Fed. Reg. 46,788 (Aug. 3, 2020) ("Final Rule") and to stay its effective date of October 2, 2020.3 See Dkt. No. 74-1, Reply Declaration of Brian Stretch ("Stretch Reply Decl."), ¶ 2, Ex. 35 (Final Rule). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, including all supplemental submissions, relevant legal authority, the record in this case, and the parties’ arguments at the hearing held on September 25, 2020.4 For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court also determines that a brief administrative stay of this ruling pending any decision by Defendants to appeal this Order is not warranted. However, if Defendants do file an appeal, nothing in this Order shall preclude them from filing a motion to stay before this Court.
USCIS conducts biennial fee reviews and, during the review for Fiscal Years ("FY") 2019/2020, "determined that current fees do not recover the full cost of providing adjudication and naturalization services." Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. at 46,788; see also id. at 46,789 ( ); see also Stretch Reply Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 38 (2019-2020 IEFA Fee Review Supporting Documentation with Addendum, May 2020 ("May IEFA Fee Review")).
On November 14, 2019, following that biennial fee review, DHS issued a notice of proposed rule-making signed by Kevin K. McAleenan ("Mr. McAleenan") as "Acting Secretary". Stretch Reply. Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 36 ( ). DHS stated that the current fee levels "are insufficient to recover the full cost of [USCIS's] operations funded by the IEFA" and stated that if USCIS "continues to operate at current fee levels, it would experience an average annual shortfall (the amount by which expenses exceed revenue) of $1,262.3 million." Id. at 62,282. DHS required written comments to be submitted before December 16, 2019, although DHS extended the comment period twice. The comment period eventually closed on February 10, 2020. See Stretch Reply Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 4 ( 84 Fed. Reg. 67,243 (Dec. 19, 2019) ); see also 85 Fed. Reg. 4,243 (Jan. 24, 2020). DHS published the Final Rule on August 3, 2020.
DHS initially proposed to adjust fees by a weighted average increase of 21 percent. NPRM, 84 Fed. Reg. at 46,280. In the Final Rule DHS adjusts "USCIS fees by a weighted average increase of 20 percent, add[s] new fees for certain immigration benefit requests, establish[es] multiple fees for non-immigrant worker petitions, and limit[s] the number of beneficiaries for certain forms." Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. at 46,788. The Final Rule also makes changes to fee waivers by eliminating the ability to seek a waiver for some fees and by changing the criteria used to determine if an individual is eligible for a waiver. Id. at 46,789.
While Plaintiffs challenge the validity of the Final Rule in its entirety, they highlight that DHS will require a $50.00 non-waivable fee to apply for asylum. See id. at 46,844. The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") permits USCIS to impose a fee "for the consideration of an application for asylum [and] for employment authorization" so long as the fees do not "exceed the Attorney General's costs in adjudicating the applications." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d). Until this rule was proposed, the United States did not charge a fee to apply for asylum.5 Instead, the cost of applying for asylum has been subsidized by "other fee-paying benefit requestors[.]" NPRM, 84 Fed. Reg. at 62,318. In addition to the application fees, immigrants seeking asylum also will be required to pay a $550.00 for their first Employment Authorization Document ("EAD"), as well as a $30.00 biometric fee. None of these three fees can be waived. The Final Rule does provide for "a $50 reduction in the fee for Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, filed in the future, for principal applicants who pay the $50 fee for Form I-589 and are subsequently granted asylum." Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. at 46,790.
On the same day DHS issued this NRPM, it also initiated a proposed rule-making procedure regarding Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants. See 85 Fed. Reg. 38,532 (June 26, 2020). Under prior rules, applicants for asylum had to wait 180 days before they could work in the United States, but DHS extended that waiting period to 365 days. See 85 Fed. Reg. at 38,626 ( )("An applicant for asylum cannot apply for initial employment authorization earlier than 365 calendar days after the date USCIS or the immigration court receives the asylum application[.]"), enjoined, in part, by Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, No. 8:20-cv-02118-PX, 486 F. Supp. 3d 928, 937 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020) (" Casa de Maryland ") ( ).
Plaintiffs also highlight the fact that DHS increased the application fee for naturalization from $640 to $1,170, increased other fees associated with naturalization, and eliminated the option to obtain fee waivers for those fees. Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. at 46,791 -792, Table 1 (. fee increases for Forms N-300, N-36, N-400, N-470) DHS did reduce the fee associated with renewing lawful permanent resident ("LPR") status, but it "unbundled" fees for three applications associated with obtaining LPR status: the application for permanent residency (Form I-485), the application for an EAD (Form I-765), and an application for travel document (Form I-131.) Id. , at 46,791 -792 & Table 1. Plaintiffs allege that, since 2007, there has been flat fee of $1,140 for those applications ($750 for children under 14). DHS will now charge $1,130 for Form I-485, $550 for Form I-765, and $590 for Form I-131. Id.
Plaintiffs also highlight the changes to fee waivers in the Final Rule. "The 2011 Fee Waiver Policy" provided that an applicant could qualify for a fee waiver if: (1) they received a means-tested benefit; (2) had household incomes at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines ("FPG"); or (3) could establish extreme financial hardship. See NPRM, 84 Fed. Reg. at 62,298. The NPRM noted that the proposed rule would "further limit[ ] forms eligible for a fee waiver and the criteria to establish eligibility for a fee waiver. Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Centro Legal De La Raza v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review
...accounted for those comments cutting to the heart of the adverse impact the rules visit in combination."); Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf , 491 F.Supp.3d 520, 541 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (finding plaintiffs were likely to succeed on APA claims because "[b]y failing to consider the combined impa......
-
Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
...but was recently enjoined by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf , No. 20-cv-05883-JSW, 491 F.Supp.3d 520, (2020).Plaintiffs Northwest Immigrant Rights Project ("NWIRP"), Ayuda, Inc. ("Ayuda"), and CASA de Maryland, Inc......
-
Pangea Legal Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...F. Supp. 3d 117, Nos. 4756 (NGG) (VMS), 17-CV-5528 (NGG) (RER), (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2020) ; Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf , 491 F. Supp. 3d 520, No. 20-cv-05883-JSW, (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020) ; Casa de Md., Inc. v. Wolf , 486 F. Supp. 3d 928, No. 20-cv-02118-PX, (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020) ......
-
Asylumworks v. Mayorkas
..., 501 F. Supp. 3d 117 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) ; Nw. Imm. Rights. Proj. v. USCIS , 496 F. Supp. 3d 31 (D.D.C. 2020) ; Imm. Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf , 491 F. Supp. 3d 520 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ; Casa de Md., Inc. v. Wolf , 486 F. Supp. 3d 928 (D. Md. 2020) ; La Clinica De La Raza v. Trump , No. 19-cv-4980,......
-
REJECTING CITIZENSHIP.
...the naturalization filing fee to $1,170. See 8 C.F.R. [section] 106.2(b)(3) (2021); see also Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf, 491 F. Supp. 3d 520, 526 (N.D. Cal. (39.) See GONZALEZ-BARRERA ET AL., supra note 10, at 7. (40.) CMS REPORT, supra note 31, at 26. (41.) Id. (42.) Id. (43.) Hyde ......