UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CSL PLASMA INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 21-cv-2360 (TSC) UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., Defendants. HECTOR AMAYA., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 22-cv-0242 (TSC) UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs—five companies that collect and sell blood plasma (“Company Plaintiffs”), their employees (“Employee Plaintiffs”), their donors (“Donor Plaintiffs”), and patients who benefit from plasma-derived therapies (“Patient Plaintiffs”)—sued Defendants United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and Chris Magnus, 1 in his official capacity as CBP Commissioner, in two cases, initially filed separately. Compl., ECF No. 1 (“CSL Plasma Compl.”), CSL Plasma, Inc., et al. v. United States Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 1 The Complaints name Troy A. Miller as an official capacity Defendant, but because Chris Magnus was sworn in as CBP Commissioner on December 13, 2021, he is substituted as the proper Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Page 1 of 31 21-cv-2360 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2021) (“CSL Plasma”); Compl., ECF No. 1 (“Amaya Compl.”), Amaya, et al. v. United States Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 22-cv-0242 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2022) (“Amaya”). The two cases were consolidated on June 30, 2022. Order of Consolidation, ECF No. 42, CSL Plasma; Order of Consolidation, ECF No. 21, Amaya. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining CBP from preventing B-1 and B-2 visa holders from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to donate their blood plasma at the companies’ collection centers. Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 7, CSL Plasma (“CSL Plasma Mot. for PI”); Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 3, Amaya (“Amaya Mot. for PI”). Of the four groups of plaintiffs, two—Donor Plaintiffs and Patient Plaintiffs—lack the necessary standing to bring suit, while Employee Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing of irreparable harm. Only Company Plaintiffs have made the clear showing necessary to merit injunctive relief. Therefore, the Amaya motion for a preliminary injunction, will be DENIED, and the CSL Plasma motion for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”) 2 created the modern statutory framework governing the immigration, naturalization, and nationality of individuals seeking to enter the United States. While the INA primarily encompasses the immigration process, it also includes entry and removal considerations for “certain nonimmigrants,” 8 U.S.C. § 1102, who are exceptions to the broader default status of “immigrants,” and include “an alien . . . visiting the United States temporarily for business or temporarily for pleasure.” Id. § 1101(a)(15)(B). 2 The Act was later amended to its current form in 1965. See Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Pub L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965) (codified at 8 U.S.C. ch. 12). The current substantive provisions about the B-1/B-2 visa provisions were enacted in the 1952 law. Page 2 of 31 The State Department administers visa categories and regulates the entry of nonimmigrant aliens …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals