Young v. Trump

Decision Date11 December 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 20-cv-07183-EMC
Citation506 F.Supp.3d 921
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
Parties Tracia Chevannese YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

Abadir Jama Barre, Barre Law, New York, NY, Kristina Ghazaryan, Law office of Kristina Ghazaryan, North Hollywood, CA, Curtis Lee Morrison, The Law Office of Rafael Urena, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Kimberly Anne Robinson, United States Attorney's Office, Oakland, CA, for Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFSMOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DENYING DEFENDANTSMOTION TO TRANSFER
Docket Nos. 8, 18

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge Plaintiffs are 181 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents ("LPR's") who have immediate family members with an approved immigrant visa petition from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). These family members seek to complete the visa process and enter the United States to unite with their family as sanctioned by long standing immigration laws. However, President Trump has issued two Presidential Proclamations banning the entry into the United States of all aliens as immigrants, with certain narrow exceptions, in response to the domestic economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Docket No. 1.

Plaintiffs bring this action against President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, and Acting Director of Homeland Security Chad F. Wolf, challenging these Proclamations and the Department of State's implementation of them. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia , that the Proclamations are ultra vires because they do not contain the predicate factual findings for the President to suspend the entry of aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) ; that they violate the Constitutional separation of powers by abrogating the carefully reticulated scheme for family-based immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"); and that the Department of State's implementation of the Proclamations violates § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") by preventing the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants who are otherwise eligible.

Before the Court is PlaintiffsMotion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 8) and DefendantsMotion to Transfer pursuant to the first-to-file rule or 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or, alternatively, for a stay (Docket No. 18). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, the parties’ arguments at the motion hearing, and the full Certified Administrative Record ("CAR") provided by Defendants (Docket No. 1-1). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS PlaintiffsMotion for Preliminary Injunction and DENIES DefendantsMotion to Transfer.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. April and June Presidential Proclamations

On April 22, 2020, President Trump announced and executed Presidential Proclamation 10014 ("April Proclamation") titled " Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak." 85 Fed. Reg. 23,441 (Apr. 27, 2020) ; CAR at 1. In the Preamble to the April Proclamation, the President determined that the United States faces a protracted economic recovery, with excess labor supply outpacing demand and historically marginalized workers (e.g. , racial minorities and those without a college degree) bearing the brunt of that excess labor supply. CAR at 1. The Preamble claims that the April Proclamation seeks to protect these workers in light of the "open market" employment authorization documents issued to LPRs admitted to this country (under the family-based immigrant visa system), as they are immediately eligible to compete for scarce jobs at the expense of struggling American workers. Id. In light of the purportedly inevitable harm which this legal immigration poses to the American workforce, the Preamble concludes that "[e]xisting immigrant visa processing protections are inadequate for recovery from the COVID–19 outbreak." Id.

Citing the President's authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and § 1185(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), the April Proclamation Preamble finds "that the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions." CAR at 2. Section 1 provides as follows: "[t]he entry into the United States of aliens as immigrants is hereby suspended and limited subject to section 2 of this proclamation." Id. Section 2 enumerates the exceptions to the Proclamation, e.g. , for aliens seeking entry to combat the spread of COVID-19 (such as a physician, nurse, or other healthcare professional) or those whose entry is deemed to be in the national interest. See CAR at 2-3. The April Proclamation lasted for 60 days, and directed three cabinet secretaries (the Secretaries of Labor, Homeland Security, and State) to "review nonimmigrant programs and ... recommend to [the President] other measures appropriate to stimulate the United States economy and ensure the prioritization, hiring, and employment of United States workers." CAR at 3.

Two months later (on June 22, 2020), the President issued Proclamation 10052, a renewing Proclamation ("June Proclamation"). 85 Fed. Reg. 38,263 ; CAR at 5. The Preamble to the June Proclamation notes the quadrupling of the unemployment rate in the United States between February and May 2020. CAR at 5. It then states the following: "pursuant to Proclamation 10014 [the April Proclamation], the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security reviewed nonimmigrant programs and found that the present admission of workers within several nonimmigrant visa categories also poses a risk of displacing and disadvantaging United States workers during the current recovery." Id. (emphasis added). The Preamble provides examples of the ways in which American workers lose jobs in industries seeking to fill worker positions tied to nonimmigrant visas. CAR at 5-6. For instance, the Preamble states that between February and April 2020, upwards of 17 million U.S. jobs were lost in industries in which employers were seeking to fill worker positions with workers entering the country on H-2B nonimmigrant visas. Id. During that same period, more than 20 million U.S. jobs were purportedly lost in industries where employers were filling such positions with workers admitted under H-1B and L nonimmigrant visas. CAR at 6. Therefore, the entry of additional workers "through the H–1B, H–2B, J, and L nonimmigrant visa programs ... presents a significant threat to employment opportunities for Americans affected by the extraordinary economic disruptions caused by the COVID–19 outbreak." CAR at 6.

Citing the President's authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and § 1185(a) of the INA, the June Proclamation extends the suspension of entry for aliens with immigrant visas through December 31, 2020, and Section 1 provides that the Proclamation may be continued "as necessary" after that date. CAR at 6. The suspension of immigrant visas is not expressly predicated on the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Homeland Security's findings noted above. In Section 2, the June Proclamation also suspends the entry of foreign nationals seeking admission on temporary nonimmigrant visas, with certain limited exceptions provided for in Section 3. CAR at 6-7. Section 4(a)(i) instructs the Secretary of State to implement the June Proclamation, as it applies to visas, pursuant to such procedures as he may establish in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor (e.g. , by promulgating standards to determine which aliens are covered by the "national interest" exception). CAR at 7.

B. Immigration Visa Application Process

Generally speaking, a foreign national who wishes to enter the United States must first obtain a visa from the U.S. Department of State ("DOS"). A visa is a travel document that confers upon its recipient the right to travel to a port of entry and apply for admission to enter the United States, but it does not guarantee a right of entry. Almaqrami v. Pompeo , 443 U.S. App. D.C. 52, 54, 933 F.3d 774, 776 (2019) ; Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 693, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 2500, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (explaining that "[t]he distinction between an alien who has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never entered runs throughout immigration law").

There are two categories of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant. Nonimmigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis, e.g. , for tourism, business, medical treatment, or certain kinds of temporary work. Included in this category are various temporary worker visas affected by the June Proclamation, e.g. , H-1B visas (occupations in fields requiring highly specialized knowledge), H-2B visas (workers performing non-agricultural labor or services on a temporary or seasonal basis), J visas (exchange visitors working as professors, scholars, or teachers), and L visas (intra-company transferees seeking to work at a branch, parent, or affiliate of their current employer in a managerial capacity). See Directory of Visa Categories, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE.1 Immigrant visas, by contrast, are issued to foreign nationals, not solely for purpose of employment, but to join their families and live permanently in the United States. Requirements for Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visas , U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 3, 2018).2 Such visas are issued, for instance, to spouses, children, and other immediate family members of U.S. citizens. In most cases, a relative or employer sponsors the immigrant visa applicant by filing a petition with USCIS.

Counsel for Plaintiffs described the process for obtaining an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Filazapovich v. Dep't of State
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 9, 2021
    ..., 513 F. Supp. 3d 132, 144–45 (D.D.C. 2021) ; Milligan v. Pompeo , 502 F. Supp. 3d 302, 316 (D.D.C. 2020) ; Young v. Trump , 506 F. Supp. 3d 921, 944–45 (N.D. Cal. 2020). This time is no different. Because Defendants have recycled their arguments on this issue from Gomez III , the court onl......
  • Sunny v. Biden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 12, 2021
    ...State Department's tiered system is within this Court's ability and sufficient to address plaintiffs’ injury. Cf. Young v. Trump, 506 F. Supp. 3d 921, 936 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (standing doctrine's redressability requirement met when an injunction would remove an administration policy freezing t......
  • Kinsley v. Blinken
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 5, 2021
    ...for individuals from Proclamation countries. See Milligan, 502 F.Supp.3d 302; Gomez, 485 F.Supp.3d 145; Tate, 513 F.Supp.3d 132; Young, 506 F.Supp.3d 921. courts (including this one) each found that a no-visa policy under the Proclamations likely violated the APA and enjoined the Government......
  • United States v. Bohannon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • December 11, 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT