Kaplan v. Chertoff

• Decision Date: 29 March 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 06-5304.
• Citation: 481 F.Supp.2d 370
• Parties: Shmul KAPLAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael CHERTOFF, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

481 F.Supp.2d 370

Shmul KAPLAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael CHERTOFF, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 06-5304.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

March 29, 2007.

As Amended April 16, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ayodele A. Gansallo, Elias and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia, Jonathan M. Stein, Michael R. Froehlich, Richard P. Weishaupt, Community Legal Services, Inc., Jordana L. Greenwald, Sabrina M. Rudnick, Thomas B. Roberts, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, John Bouman, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Elizabeth J. Stevens, US Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Richard M. Bernstein, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................376
                II. BACKGROUND ..............................................................377
                    A. Social Security Benefits for Humanitarian Refugees ...................377
                    B. Procedure for Humanitarian Immigrants to Become United States
                         Citizens ...........................................................378
                    C. Delays in the LPR and Naturalization Process .........................379
                       1. Delays for Refugees ...............................................379
                       2. Delays for Asylees ................................................379
                

                    D. Alleged Inadequacy of Existing CIS and FBI Policies ..................380
                    E. Termination of Benefits ..............................................380
                III. JURISDICTION ...........................................................380
                    A. Plaintiffs Have "Presented" Claims for Continued Enrollment in the SSI
                         Program ............................................................381
                    B. No Practical Purpose Would Be Served By Exhausting Administrative
                         Remedies ...........................................................381
                       1. Plaintiffs' claims are collateral to their claim for benefits .....382
                       2. Plaintiffs have made out a colorable showing of irreparable harm 382
                       3. Requiring Plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies would be
                            futile ..........................................................383
                IV. THE MERITS ..............................................................384
                    A. Plaintiffs' Due Process Claim ........................................384
                       1. The Welfare Reform Act's Plain Language ...........................384
                       2. The Framework for Statutory Construction ..........................384
                          (a) The plain language of the statute supports a finding that the time
                               limitation is a substantive element of eligibility ...........384
                          (b) An examination of relevant legislative history also supports a
                              finding that the time limitation is a substantive element of
                              eligibility ...................................................384
                              (i) Congressional policy with respect to welfare and
                                   immigration ..............................................386
                              (ii) Congress addressed the problem facing Plaintiffs and chose
                                    not to indefinitely extend SSI benefits .................387
                       2. The cases relied upon by Plaintiffs are distinguishable ...........389
                       3. Plaintiffs do not have an entitlement to the procedures for applying
                            for LPR status or naturalization ................................390
                       4. Conclusion ........................................................391
                    B. Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Claim ...................................391
                       1. The Standard of Review for Equal Protection .......................392
                          (a) Disparate treatment claims require intent to Discriminate .....392
                          (b) Intra-Alien classifications warrant only rational basis .......393
                       2. Plaintiffs have stated a claim for violation of the Equal Protection
                            Clause ..........................................................395
                          (a) Unequal treatment as a result of unintended backlogs does not
                                violate equal protection ....................................395
                          (b) Intentional and arbitrary implementation of the expedited policy
                                constitutes a violation of equal protection .................396
                              (i) Plaintiffs have alleged an intentional decision by CIS ....396
                             (ii) Plaintiffs have alleged CIS's decision to expedite is based on
                                    an arbitrary factor .....................................396
                    C. Plaintiffs' Claims Under the APA .....................................398
                       1. Plaintiffs State an APA Claim Against CIS .........................399
                       2. Plaintiffs State an APA Claim Against the FBI .....................400
                       3. Whether Alleged FBI Delays Are Attributable to CIS ................401
                    D. Issue Preclusion .....................................................402
                       1. The Ngwanyia Case .................................................402
                       2. Issue preclusion applies only where an issue was necessary to the
                           adjudication of a prior case .....................................403
                       3. None of the issues necessary to the adjudication of Ngwanyia are
                           identical to issues in this case .................................404
                V. CONCLUSION ...............................................................404
                

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is a claim by humanitarian refugees and asylees that they are entitled to continue to receive supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits beyond the seven-year limit set by Congress.

The case raises substantial issues of national policy. On the one hand, Plaintiffs' claims implicate a core belief that America continues to be a welcoming home for the "huddled masses" escaping the horror of tyranny. On the other hand, the claims also raise issues of domestic social policy and the allocation of governmental resources among competing populations in need. Which branch of government gets to decide the issue, what process is used to decide it, and the ultimate outcome of the case all say much about the American legal and political system in the dawn of the 21st Century.

Plaintiffs in this case are a proposed class of some 50,000 refugees and asylees who have lost or are at risk of losing their SSI benefits as a result of alleged delays in their applications for legal permanent residency ("LPR") status and naturalization.¹ These humanitarian immigrants, like any United States citizen, qualify for SSI benefits if they are impoverished and either elderly, disabled, or blind. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. However, unlike United States citizens, their eligibility for SSI benefits is limited to a seven-year period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)(2). Plaintiffs are humanitarian immigrants who qualify for SSI benefits but have had those benefits subject to termination because of the expiration of the seven-year period of eligibility. Plaintiffs maintain these terminations are unlawful because they result from administrative delays in the processing of their applications for naturalization.

Plaintiffs allege that typical members of the proposed class are Russian Jews and other religious minorities who fled the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds who fled persecution under the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans fleeing the Castro regime, Hmong immigrants from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the U.S. military during the Vietnam war, persecuted minorities in Somalia, and persons from various regions of the former Yugoslavia displaced by the Balkan wars. Plaintiffs allege that the termination of SSI benefits puts their very survival at stake, as they receive SSI benefits because they are all both impoverished and either disabled, blind, or elderly.

For example, Shmul Kaplan, the first named plaintiff in the case, is an 80-year old Holocaust survivor. His disabilities include an amputated right leg and a badly fractured and deformed left leg. Mr. Kaplan was persecuted in the former Soviet Union because of his Jewish religion. He entered the United States in 1996 and was granted asylum the following year. In 1998, he applied for LPR status, but Defendants did not rule on his application until September 2003, five years later. Because he was not able to obtain American citizenship within seven years, the Social Security Administration ("SSA") terminated his SSI benefits in 2004. Mr. Kaplan cannot even apply for naturalization until June 2007, over ten years after he was granted asylum, and well past the expiration of his seven-year eligibility for SSI benefits.

Plaintiffs bring essentially two actions in this matter. The first is against the SSA, claiming that Plaintiffs are entitled to continue receiving SSI benefits even after the seven-year period of eligibility has expired. In the first action, Plaintiffs argue that the SSA has deprived them of their entitlement to SSI benefits without affording due process. Through this first action, Plaintiffs seek restoration of their SSI benefits and an injunction prohibiting further termination of SSI benefits to humanitarian immigrants.

Plaintiffs bring the second action against the Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). In the second action, Plaintiffs allege that there are procedural deficiencies in the processing of their applications for naturalization. They assert that the different timeliness in the processing of humanitarian immigrants' applications violates the Equal Protection Clause. They also assert that CIS and the FBI have unreasonably delayed the processing of their applications, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA...