UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) NORA AND HER MINOR ) SON, JOSE (by and through ) his mother) c/o American ) Civil Liberties Union, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-0993 (ABJ) ) CHAD F. WOLF, Acting ) Secretary of the Department ) of Homeland Security ) in his official capacity, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs are twenty-six asylum seekers – twelve adults and their fourteen minor children – who are awaiting the completion of asylum proceedings in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. Compl. [Dkt. # 3] ¶ 1. They all fled violence and persecution in their home countries and sought refuge in the United States. Compl. ¶ 1. Once they reached the border, the Department of Homeland Security returned plaintiffs to Mexico pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols, which require that asylum seekers be returned to the territory from which they came from pending adjudication of their requests. Compl. ¶¶ 3–4. The complaint alleges that the decision to expand the implementation of this policy to include the entry points bordering Tamaulipas was unreasonable and unlawful; plaintiffs allege that they have endured – and continue to endure – extreme physical violence there. Compl. ¶ 2. They aver that have been assaulted, kidnapped, raped, extorted, and threatened by members of organized groups that control the area. Pls.’ 1 Declarations, Ex. 1 to Compl. [Dkt. # 3-2] (SEALED) (“Pls.’ Decls.”). Plaintiffs contend that the federal government is well-aware of the violence that migrants face in Tamaulipas, Compl. ¶ 5; they point out that the region has been assigned the U.S. State Department’s highest level “Do Not Travel” advisory “due to crime and kidnapping.” Compl. ¶¶ 39–40. On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, claiming that the Department of Homeland Security and its Acting Secretary, Chad F. Wolf, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), in expanding the Migrant Protection Protocols to include Tamaulipas; that the policy and the government’s decision to return these plaintiffs violates their substantive due process rights; and that the return decisions were not adjudicated appropriately. Compl. ¶¶ 105–21. On May 2, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting that they be returned to the United States during the pendency of this litigation. Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. # 18] (“Pls.’ Mot.”); Pls.’ Redacted Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. # 18-2] (“Pls.’ Mem.”) at 1, 4. Defendants opposed the motion on May 8, 2020. Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. [Dkt. # 23-2] (SEALED); Defs.’ Redacted Mem. of P. & A. in Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. [Dkt. # 34] (“Defs.’ Mem.”). In opposition to the motion, defendants argued, among other things, that plaintiffs could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits since the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear their claims. Defs.’ Mem. at 22–30, 35–37. For the reasons set ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals