UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A.B.-8., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v ) Civil Case No. 20-cv-846 (RJL) ) MARK A. MORGAN, Acting ) Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border ) Protection, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Au 2020 [Dkt. #12] Plaintiffs are four mothers and their seven children from Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico who seek asylum in the United States based on fears of kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder by individuals connected to politicians or drug cartels in their home countries With their lives potentially on the line, they challenge a January 30,2020 Memorandum of Agreement delegating authority from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") to allow agents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") to conduct "credible fear" interviews for asylum seekers. Plaintiffs contend that the Memorandum of Agreement (1) was issued in violation of the Federal Vacancics Rcform Act, (2) violatcs the Homeland Security Act's delegation of asylum authority to CIS, (3) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act's requirements for the asylum process, (a) is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, (5) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and (6) violates the U.N. Convention Against Torture' s protection against r efoulement. Plaintiffs faced imminent removal from the United States after their negative "credible fear" determinations by CBP agents were upheld by immigration judges. As such, they sought a temporary restraining order preventing their removal and, as relevant here, preliminary injunctive relief barring CBP agents from conducting further credible fear interviews pursuant to the January 30, 2020 Memorandum of Agreement. While plaintiffs raise many important claims, I need address only one of them here because plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of CBP agents who receive substantially less training than CIS asylum officers to conduct asylum interviews violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. Weighing the preliminary injunction factors, I find that plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction lDkt. #121. BACKGROUND L The Expedited Removal System Prior to 1996, noncitizens who entered the United States without valid authorization generally received a full hearing in immigration court before they could be removed. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIR[RA"), amending the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") to establish an "expedited removal" process through which certain noncitizens seeking admission to the United States could be removed "without fuither hearing or review," 8 U.S.C. 2 $ 122s(b)(1xA)(i). See Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.). Under the expedited removal framework, an alien "who is arriving in the United States" or "certain other aliens" shall be ordered "removed from the United States without further hearing or review." 8 U.S.C $ 1225(bXlXA). However, the IIRIRA created an exception for individuals who indicate "an intention to apply for asylum" or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals