Kiakombua v. Wolf, No. 19-cv-1872 (KBJ)
Decision Date | 31 October 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 19-cv-1872 (KBJ) |
Citation | 498 F.Supp.3d 1 |
Parties | Maria M. KIAKOMBUA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Chad F. WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Deepa Alagesan, Kathryn S. Austin, Mariko Hirose, International Refugee Assistance Project, New York, NY, Justin B. Cox, Pro Hac Vice, International Refugee Assistance Project, Atlanta, GA, Manoj Govindaiah, Maria R. Osornio, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education & Legal Services, San Antonio, TX, for PlaintiffMaria M. Kiakombua.
Deepa Alagesan, Kathryn S. Austin, International Refugee Assistance Project, New York, NY, Manoj Govindaiah, Maria R. Osornio, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education & Legal Services, San Antonio, TX, Justin B. Cox, Pro Hac Vice, International Refugee Assistance Project, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs Sofia, Ana, Julia, Emma.
Paul Cirino, Steven A. Platt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Department of Homeland Security("DHS")—and, in particular, DHS's sub-agency, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS")—is tasked with the responsibility of training federal employees to make sensitive and consequential judgments concerning the asylum eligibility of noncitizens seeking refuge in the United States.1Federal law specifically prescribes the substantive standards that front-line asylum officers apply in order to identify those noncitizens designated for expedited removal who have a "credible fear or persecution" in their home countries and are thus entitled to a more probing evaluation of their asylum request in the context of a full removal hearing.See, e.g. , 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B);8 C.F.R. § 208.30;see alsoIllegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C,110 Stat. 3009-546(8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. ).USCIS has also developed a related training course for its screening officers, which utilizes a manual titled the "Lesson Plan on Credible Fear of Persecution and Torture Determinations."(Ex. 1 to Admin. Record ("Lesson Plan"), ECFNo. 61-1, at 2–38.)2That document—which the agency colloquially refers to as "the Lesson Plan"—purports "to explain [to asylum officers] how to determine whether an alien subject to expedited removal or an arriving stowaway has a credible fear of persecution or torture."(Id. at 2.)According to USCIS, the Lesson Plan enables asylum officers "to correctly make a credible fear determination consistent with the statutory provisions, regulations, policies, and procedures that govern whether the applicant has established a credible fear of persecution or a credible fear of torture."(Id. )
The instant action challenges that proposition.PlaintiffsMaria Kiakombua, Ana, Emma, Sofia, and Julia (collectively "Plaintiffs") are noncitizens subject to expedited removal who allege that, sometime between May and June of 2019, USCIS screening officers made adverse credible fear determinations with respect to each of them pursuant to the Lesson Plan's directives.Plaintiffs assert, inter alia , that the current version of the Lesson Plan is unlawfully designed "to drive down the rate at which asylum seekers pass the screenings and avoid summary deportation[,]" and that it does so by, among other things, directing asylum officers to make credible fear determinations in a manner that is manifestly inconsistent with the governing statutory and regulatory requirements.(Id.¶ 72;see, e.g. , id.¶ 85().)For example, according to Plaintiffs, the Lesson Plan "converts the credible fear determination from an inquiry into whether an asylum seeker could establish eligibility for relief in the future"(id.¶ 81), as the Immigration and Nationality Act("INA") provides, see8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v), "into an adjudication on whether the asylum seeker actually has established eligibility" during the initial screening phase (Am. Compl. ¶ 81).Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that the Lesson Plan "increases the evidentiary burden the asylum seeker must carry to pass a credible fear screening" insofar as it "impos[es] an unlawful corroboration requirement; requir[es] the asylum seeker to present more than significant evidence of eligibility ...; and plac[es] the onus on the asylum seeker to produce testimony that is in fact the officer's duty to elicit."(Id.¶ 83(internal quotation marks omitted).)
Plaintiffs’ three-count lawsuit, which has been filed against the Attorney General, DHS, USCIS, the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations ("RAIO") Directorate, and United States Customs and Border Protection ("CBP")(collectively, "Defendants"), claims that: (1) the current Lesson Plan is inconsistent with the provisions of certain immigration-related statutes, other federal laws, and customary international law (seeAm. Compl. ¶¶ 89–98("First Claim for Relief")); (2)Defendants failed to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures when they crafted the current Lesson Plan, in violation of the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act("APA")(id.¶¶ 99–103("Second Claim for Relief")); and (3) as it is currently constituted, the Lesson Plan transgresses the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Before this Court at present are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment concerning Plaintiffs’ legal claims.(SeeDefs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J.(), ECFNo. 31-1;Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. and in Opp'n to Defs.’ Mot. (), ECFNo. 36-1;Defs.’ Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pls.’ Mot. and Reply in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. (), ECF No. 49;Pls.’ Reply Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. (), ECF No. 60.)In their motion, Defendants make...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Comm. Overseeing Action for Lumber Int'l Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States
...a rule the court found to be arbitrary and capricious and in excess of statutory authority under the APA); Kiakombua v. Wolf , 498 F. Supp. 3d 1, 51–52 (D.D.C. 2020) (rejecting the argument that vacatur was "not appropriate in [that] case as a matter of the equities" and stating that "vacat......
-
Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas
...States government that this country ought to serve as a place of refuge for persons who are in such distress." Kiakombua v. Wolf , 498 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11-12 (D.D.C. 2020). In keeping with this policy, Congress has codified various procedures governing how the United States evaluates and proc......
-
Breeze v. Kabila Inc.
...jurisdiction." Kareem, 986 F.3d at 866 n.7 (citing Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 908 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ); accord Kiakombua v. Wolf, 498 F. Supp. 3d 1, 22 (D.D.C. 2020) ("[U]nlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may look to documents outside of the complaint in order to evaluate whether ......
-
Las Ams. Immigrant Advocacy Ctr. v. Wolf
...and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. , and that statute's implementing regulations. See Kiakombua v. Wolf , No. 19-cv-1872, 498 F.Supp.3d 1, 10–11 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2020). In the instant case, the Court has been similarly called upon to determine the lawfulness of certain oth......
-
Shaping Immigration Policy Through Federal Courts
...Act of 1978 because the interpretation was "contrary to the history, structure, and basic philosophy of the [Act]"); Kiakombua v. Wolf, 498 F. Supp. 3d 1, 44 (D.D.C. 2020) (USCIS policy requiring applicants to provide facts and supporting evidence for every element of the asylum claim at th......