UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civ. Action No. 21-100(EGS) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs—a group of asylum-seeking families who fled to the United States—bring this lawsuit against Alejandro Mayorkas, 1 in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, and various other federal government officials (“Defendants” or the “government”) for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.; the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq.; the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note; and the Public Health Service Act of 1944, 42 U.S.C § 201, et seq. Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Classwide Preliminary 1 Alejandro Mayorkas is substituted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 1 Injunction. See Pls.’ Mot. Class Cert., ECF No. 23-1; Mem. Supp. Pls.’ Mot. Classwide Prelim. Inj. (“Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj.”), ECF No. 57-1. 2 Upon careful consideration of the motions, the responses, and replies thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction. 3 I. Background A. Factual Background 1. The U.S. Asylum Process “For almost a century, Congress has recognized that citizens of foreign states are sometimes forced to flee from persecution in their home countries, and it has been the policy of the United States government that this country ought to serve 2 When citing electronic filings throughout this Memorandum Opinion, the Court cites to the ECF page number, not the page number of the filed document. 3 On August 11, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. See Mot. Oral Argument, ECF No. 117. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 65(d), “[o]n request of the moving party together with a statement of the facts which make expedition essential, a hearing on an application for preliminary injunction shall be set by the Court no later than 21 days after its filing, unless the Court earlier decides the motion on the papers or makes a finding that a later hearing date will not prejudice the parties.” Here, while Plaintiffs filed their motion on February 5, 2021, briefing on the motion was stayed until August 5, 2021. See Min. Order (Aug. 5, 2021). Thus, the Court finds that there is no prejudice to the parties in declining to hold a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion and shall instead decide the motion on the papers. Defendants’ motion for oral argument is therefore denied. 2 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 processes the admission requests of refugees. As relevant here, there are …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals