Libre v. Mayorkas

• Docket Number: 2:22-cv-01510-ODW (JPRx)
• Decision Date: 31 July 2023
• Parties: CASA LIBRE/FREEDOM HOUSE et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

1

CASA LIBRE/FREEDOM HOUSE et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS et al., Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01510-ODW (JPRx)

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 31, 2023

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [97] [102]

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II United States District judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action challenging how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) processes petitions for Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status. The Plaintiffs are individuals who submitted SIJ petitions to USCIS and organizations who provide legal and other assistance to such individuals. The Court certified a class for the purpose of Plaintiffs' challenge to regulations that allow USCIS in certain circumstances to suspend the statutory 180-day deadline for adjudicating SIJ petitions. (Order Certify Class, ECF No. 91.) Both sides now move for summary judgment. (Pl. Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl Mot.”), ECF No. 97; Def. Mot. Summ. J. (“Def Mot.”), ECF No. 102.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART each Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

At the outset of this case, Plaintiffs asserted two claims: a constitutional equal protection claim and a claim pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. The Court has since dismissed the equal protection claim, (Order Mot. Dismiss FAC, ECF No 48), and has narrowed which aspects of the APA claim may proceed on a classwide basis, (Order Certify Class 27-28). The following facts relate to the claims that remain.

A. The SIJ Petition Process

In 1990, Congress created the SIJ classification to aid noncitizen children physically present in the United States who were declared dependent on state courts and were eligible for long-term foster care. Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 153, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990). The purpose of the SIJ classification is to help alleviate “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. 42843-01, 42844, 1993 WL 304167 (Aug. 12, 1993).

In 1998, Congress revised the SIJ definition to include juveniles eligible for long-term foster care “due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment.” Departments of Commerce, Justice, & State, the Judiciary, & Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998, H.R. 2267, Pub. L. 105-119, 105th Cong., at 22 (Nov. 26, 1997). More recently, in 2008, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (“TVPRA”). Pub. L. No. 110-457, § 235(d), 112 Stat. 5044 (2008). The TVPRA replaced the foster care requirement with more expansive language permitting young immigrants to apply for SIJ status based on a state court's finding that “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.” TVPRA § 235(d)(1)(A); Immigration & Nationality Act § 101(a)(27)(J)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i); see J.L. v. Cissna, 341 F.Supp.3d 1048, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2018). The TVPRA also amended the SIJ statute to provide that “[a]ll applications for [SIJ] status . . . shall be adjudicated . . . not later than 180 days after the date on which the application is filed.” TVPRA § 235, 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2). This deadline is the key statutory provision at issue in this case.

SIJ status is available if (1) the juvenile immigrant has been declared dependent on a juvenile court or legally committed to the custody of an individual or entity; (2) reunification with one or both of the juvenile immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment; (3) it has been determined in administrative or judicial proceedings that it would not be in the juvenile immigrant's best interest to be returned to the juvenile immigrant's or parent's previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence; and (4) the Secretary of Homeland Security consents to the grant of special immigrant juvenile status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). The petitioner must be under the age of twenty-one at the time they file their SIJ petition. 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(b)(1).

SIJ status provides a pathway to lawful permanent residency: once a juvenile immigrant's SIJ petition is approved, the juvenile immigrant may then apply to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), (h).

B. Tolling Provisions

Pursuant to enacted regulations, USCIS follows two procedures with respect to the aforementioned 180-day deadline:

• When a SIJ petition lacks required initial evidence, USCIS informs the petitioner what evidence is required and provides a deadline for submitting the additional evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(ii). The 180-day time period starts over on the date USCIS receives the required initial evidence. Id. § 204.11(g)(1).

• If USCIS requests that the SIJ petitioner submit additional evidence, USCIS may send the petitioner a Request for Evidence (“RFE”) or a Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”). See id. § 103.2(b)(8)(iii). The 180-day deadline is suspended, or “tolled,” as of the date the RFE or NOID is issued and resumes when USCIS receives the requested additional evidence. Id. §§ 103.2(b)(10)(i), 204.11(g)(1).

Herein, the Court refers to these rules as the “Tolling Provisions.” The Tolling Provisions are based on longstanding Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) regulations, first adopted in 1996, that govern how INS interprets statutory and regulatory processing timeframes. At the time the 1996 regulation was adopted, INS explained:

The filing of [a] . . . petition without the required initial evidence . . . effectively hampers our ability to make a definitive determination of eligibility.... Therefore, the Service considers processing time for any application or petition to refer to time unhampered by the applicant or petitioner's action or lack of required action. ...

Accordingly, in such circumstances the processing clock will stop with respect to any time limits for adjudicating the request for Service action at the time the Service sends a notice for initial evidence, and it will start over at the time the Service receives the evidence ....

(DSUF 55 (citing Changes in Processing Procedures for certain Applications and for Immigration Benefits, 59 Fed.Reg. 1455-01, 1457, 1994 WL 5197 (Jan. 11, 1994)).

USCIS is not statutorily required to issue a RFE or a NOID. Instead, pursuant to USCIS regulations, when a SIJ petition is deficient, USCIS retains the discretion to choose, in each individual case, whether to issue a RFE or a NOID, or deny the petition altogether. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8)(ii), (iii). Under USCIS policy, officers are directed “not [to] issue an RFE or NOID if the officer determines the evidence already submitted establishes eligibility or ineligibility for the request.” (Pl. Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (“PSUF”) 63, ECF No. 97-14 (quoting USCIS Policy Manual (“Pol. Man.”) Vol. 1, Part E, Chap. 6, § F).)

C. How USCIS Processes SIJ Petitions

USCIS trains the officers who adjudicate SIJ petitions on the history and background of the SIJ classification, the child welfare process, general SIJ eligibility requirements, what constitutes a juvenile court, whether the juvenile court has jurisdiction over the SIJ petitioner, the relevance of dependency or custody, the function of best interest and reunification findings by the state court, and ultimately, whether the SIJ petitioner has met all requirements such that the Secretary of Homeland Security's consent is warranted. (Def. Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (“DSUF”) 12, ECF No. 102-2; Pl. Statement of Genuine Issues (“PSGI”) 12, ECF No. 107-1 (designating facts as undisputed); see also Def. Resp. PSGI, ECF No. 108-1.) As part of each SIJ adjudication, the adjudicating officer must thoroughly review the record, including the petitioner's immigration history and any prior applications to USCIS. (DSUF 5.) The adjudicating officer must also ensure the petitioner has passed a background and security check. (DSUF 5.) If the officer determines that the petitioner meets all requirements, the officer approves the case and grants SIJ classification. (DSUF 7.) If the officer determines that the petitioner has not met all eligibility requirements, the officer may (i) issue a RFE; (ii) issue a NOID, or (iii) deny the petition. (Id.)

USCIS regulations permit adjudicating officers some flexibility in assigning deadlines for petitioners to respond to a RFE, subject to a maximum response period of eighty-four days. (DSUF 9.) To ensure consistency, officers generally allow petitioners the full eighty-four days, but USCIS regulations permit officers to advance the response deadline on a case-by-case basis after obtaining supervisory concurrence. (Id.) As USCIS policy provides, when issuing a RFE, the officer should ask for all the evidence the officer anticipates needing to determine eligibility and clearly state the deadline for response. (DSUF 8.) An officer should not request evidence that is outside the scope of the adjudication or otherwise irrelevant to an identified deficiency. (Id.)

USCIS has discretion to issue a NOID for similar and additional reasons, including when the petitioner has not established eligibility or when USCIS uncovers derogatory information of which the petitioner may not be aware. (DSUF 10.) The deadline for responding to a NOID is subject to an upper limit of thirty-three days. (DSUF 19.)

From March 2020 to March 2023, as part of a series of “COVID-Related Flexibilities,” USCIS granted SIJ petitioners an...