FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INNOVATION LAW LAB; CENTRAL No. 19-15716 AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; CENTRO D.C. No. LEGAL DE LA RAZA; UNIVERSITY OF 3:19-cv-00807- SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL OF LAW RS IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION DEFENSE CLINIC; AL OTRO LADO; TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER, OPINION Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity; ANDREW DAVIDSON, Acting Chief of Asylum Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; TODD C. OWEN, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official 2 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF capacity; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 1, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed February 28, 2020 Before: Ferdinand F. Fernandez, William A. Fletcher, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher; Dissent by Judge Fernandez INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 3 SUMMARY* Immigration /Preliminary Injunctions The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction setting aside the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), under which non-Mexican asylum seekers who present themselves at the southern border of the United States are required to wait in Mexico while their asylum applications are adjudicated. After the MPP went into effect in January 2019, individual and organizational plaintiffs sought an injunction, arguing, inter alia, that the MPP is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and that they have a right to a remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The district court issued a preliminary injunction setting aside the MPP. The Government appealed and requested an emergency stay in this court pending appeal. In three written opinions, a motions panel unanimously granted the emergency stay. In a per curiam opinion, the motions panel disagreed, by a vote of two to one, with the district court’s holding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their statutory argument that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Judge Watford concurred in that opinion, but wrote separately to express concern that the MPP is arbitrary and capricious because it lacks sufficient non-refoulement protections. Judge Fletcher * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF concurred only in the result, arguing that the MPP was inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). The current panel first noted that the individual plaintiffs, all of whom have been returned to Mexico under the MPP, obviously have standing. The panel also concluded that the organizational plaintiffs have standing, noting their decreased ability to carry ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals