UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) MARIA M. KIAKOMBUA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 19-cv-1872 (KBJ) ) CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as ) Acting Secretary of the Department of ) Homeland Security, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 5 A. Credible Fear Screenings And The U.S. Asylum Process .................................. 5 B. USCIS’s “Lesson Plan On Credible Fear Of Persecution And Torture Determinations” ............................................................................................ 10 C. Plaintiffs’ Asylum-Related Experiences ........................................................ 12 1. Maria Kiakombua .................................................................................... 13 2. “Sofia” and “Julia” .................................................................................. 14 3. “Ana” and “Emma” ................................................................................. 16 D. Procedural History ........................................................................................ 17 1. Plaintiffs’ Legal Claims ........................................................................... 18 2. The Parties’ Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment ................................ 20 III. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................ 24 A. Motions To Dismiss Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ............ 24 B. Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment With Respect To Legal Claims That Assail Agency Action Under The APA And Otherwise ........................... 26 IV. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 27 A. Plaintiffs Have Article III Standing To Challenge The Lesson Plan, And Defendants Have Not Established That Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Moot .............. 29 1. Plaintiffs Suffered An Injury In Fact, Which Is Fairly Traceable To The Lesson Plan, And May Be Redressed By An Order Vacating The Lesson Plan And Requiring New Credible Fear Determinations ................ 29 2. Defendants Have Not Persuasively Demonstrated Mootness ..................... 34 B. This Court Has Subject-Matter Jurisdiction To Review Agency Action That Allegedly Violates Provisions Of The INA ............................................ 40 1. Section 1252(e)(3)(A) Of The INA Preserves This Court’s Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 In These Circumstances ........................................................................................ 43 2. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not Time-Barred ................................................... 50 C. The Lesson Plan Violates The INA And Its Implementing Regulations ........... 53 1. The INA And Its Regulations Plainly Establish A Two-Stage Framework To Demonstrate Asylum Eligibility In The Expedited Removal Context, And Provide Standards For Making The Required Assessment At Each Stage Of The Process ............................................... 55 2. Certain Provisions Of The Lesson Plan Conflate The Initial Credible Fear Screening Standards With The Requirements For Asylum Eligibility, And Are Thus Manifestly Inconsistent With The INA’s Express Prescriptions .............................................................................. 60 a. The Lesson Plan Requires That A Noncitizen “Identify More Than Significant Evidence That The Applicant Is A Refugee Entitled To Asylum” In Order To Pass The Credible Fear Screening .................... 60 b. The Lesson Plan Imports Factors That Are Relevant For Asylum Relief During The Full Removal Proceeding Stage Into The Initial Credible Fear Determination Process ................................................. 62 c. The Lesson Plan Places A Burden On The Asylum Seeker Who Suffered Past Persecution To Show Unchanged Country Conditions And The Unavailability Of Internal Relocation As Prerequisites For A Favorable Credible Fear Determination .................................... 65 ii 3. Certain Provisions Of The Lesson Plan Are Based Upon An Unreasonable Interpretation Of The INA’s Asylum Review Process ......... 67 a. The Lesson Plan’s Mandate That Noncitizens Provide “Evidence” And “Facts” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals