Hines Immigration Law, PLLC v. Executive Office for Immigration Review

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia considers plaintiffs’ request for relief under Administrative Procedure Act § 705 against an alleged policy accelerating immigration proceedings for non-detained Somali nationals. The court concludes that plaintiffs likely can show injury in fact and causation but have not shown that their injuries are likely redressable, particularly because the Immigration and Nationality Act may bar the requested relief. The opinion also addresses whether the alleged policy constitutes final agency action subject to judicial review and denies preliminary relief.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs were likely able to establish injury in fact and causation, but they had not shown that their injuries were likely redressable by relief the district court had authority to enter.
2. The stronger relief plaintiffs sought—an order requiring all affected non-detained Somali cases to revert to their January 26, 2026 hearing schedules—was likely barred by § 1252(f)(1).
3. Section 1252(b)(9) likely deprived the district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because they arose from the scheduling and conduct of removal proceedings.
4. Plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood that the alleged Somali Fast-Track Policy was final agency action subject to APA review.
5. Plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to a stay because they had not shown likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, or that the equities and public interest favored relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs were likely to establish Article III organizational standing, including injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) likely barred the requested relief because reverting hearing schedules would restrain the operation of the INA's removal-proceedings provisions.
3. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) likely deprived the district court of jurisdiction over claims arising from the scheduling of removal proceedings.
4. Whether the alleged Somali Fast-Track Policy was likely final agency action reviewable under the APA.
5. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated likely irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored a stay.

Disposition

other