UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. Action No. 21-3317 (EGS) v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs—the California-based nonprofit Haitian Bridge Alliance and eleven Haitian asylum seekers expelled from the United States—bring this lawsuit against various federal government officials and departments 1 (“Defendants” or “the 1 Defendants include Joseph Biden, President of the United States, in his official capacity; Alejandro J. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; the Department of Homeland Security; Chris Magnus, Commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity; William A. Ferrara, Executive Assistant Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations, in his official capacity; Raul Ortiz, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, in his official capacity; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity; Department of Health and Human Services; Rochelle P. Walensky, Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in her official capacity; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 1 government”) alleging violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”); and the Public Health Service Act of 1944. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 2 Plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons defined as “all Haitian, or presumed Haitian, individuals who (1) sought access to the U.S. asylum process in or around the CBP Encampment near the Del Rio Port of Entry between September 9 and 24, 2021, and (2) were denied access to the U.S. asylum process.” Id. ¶ 271. Upon filing, Plaintiffs designated this lawsuit as related to Huisha-Huisha v. Gaynor, No. 21-cv-100 (D.D.C. 2021), and P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-2245 (D.D.C. 2020), requesting that the case be assigned to this Court under Local Civil Rule 40.5(a). See Notice Related Case, ECF No. 7. Defendants object to the designation of this case as related to the two other cases, and request that this Court transfer this action to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment. Joint Status Report (“JSR”), ECF No. 20 at 11-12. 2 When citing to electronic filings throughout this Memorandum Opinion the Court cites to the ECF header page number not the page number of the filed document. 2 Upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ objection. Generally, all new cases are randomly assigned. See LCvR 40.3(a). Random assignment “ensure[s] greater public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process[,] . . . guarantees fair and equal distribution of cases to all judges, avoids public perception or appearance of favoritism in assignments, and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals