UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) VIJENDER VIJENDER, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 19-cv-3337 (APM) ) CHAD F. WOLF, in his official ) capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland ) Security, et al., 1 ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Plaintiffs in this case are asylum seekers who were found to lack credible fear of persecution in their home countries and are therefore subject to expedited removal from the United States. Plaintiffs challenge an instructional document issued on April 30, 2019—which they term the “Lesson Plan”—that their asylum officers followed to make credible fear determinations. Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3). That provision empowers the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to review actions challenging “a written policy directive, written policy guideline, or written procedure issued by or under the authority of the Attorney General to implement” the statutory provisions governing the expedited removal of arriving aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(A)(ii). Any such action, however, must be brought within 60 days after the date the challenged policy or procedure is “first implemented.” Id. § 1252(e)(3)(B). Plaintiffs do not contend that their action was filed within 60 days of the first 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the court substitutes Chad Wolf, who succeeded the originally named Defendant Kevin McAleenan as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. implementation of the Lesson Plan, which was issued more than six months before they filed this lawsuit. Rather, they argue that the 60-day deadline is either non-jurisdictional or unconstitutional. For the reasons that follow, the court rejects both arguments and dismisses this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. II. This suit commenced on November 5, 2019, when Vijender Vijender—an asylum seeker who has since dismissed his claims in full—filed a complaint against Defendants. 2 See Compl., ECF No. 1. The following day, on November 6, 2020, Vijender filed a motion for an emergency stay of removal, alleging that he was at risk of imminent removal from this country. See Emergency Mot. for an Administrative Stay of Removal, ECF No. 3, at 4. The court granted the temporary stay of removal, see Order, ECF No. 5, and directed the parties to submit expedited briefing regarding the court’s jurisdiction over the matter, see November 7, 2020 Minute Order. While briefing was proceeding, the court granted Vijender leave to amend his complaint twice, first adding Plaintiff Mukesh Mehla, see Dec. 17, 2019 Minute Order; Am. Compl., ECF No. 12, and subsequently adding Plaintiffs Ansier Rodriguez-Candelaria, Jagjot Singh, and Mantek Singh, see Dec. 23, 2019 Minute Order; Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 17 [hereinafter Second Am. Compl.]. The court temporarily enjoined Defendants from removing these additional plaintiffs pending the resolution of the jurisdictional question. See Order, ECF No. 10; Order, ECF No. 15. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their Complaint a third time to join Prospective Plaintiff Sahil Sahil. See Pls.’ Mot. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals