John Doe v. Kristi L. Noem, Marco A. Rubio, and Joseph B. Edlow

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action challenging USCIS’s denial of humanitarian parole applications. The court held that consular nonreviewability did not bar review of whether USCIS evaluated the applications on a case-by-case basis, and that the plaintiff plausibly stated an APA claim. The court also concluded that the Laken Riley Act’s state-enforcement provision did not foreclose the plaintiff’s private cause of action under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).

Holdings

1. The doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not bar review of the nondiscretionary predicate question whether USCIS reviewed the parole applications on a case-by-case basis.
2. Plaintiff plausibly alleged an APA claim based on USCIS's failure to evaluate the second-round parole applications on a case-by-case basis and its alleged failure to follow its own procedures.
3. Plaintiff may maintain an action to enforce the case-by-case requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(C) does not make an action by a state attorney general the exclusive method of challenging agency noncompliance.
4. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged standing to enforce the case-by-case requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the doctrine of consular nonreviewability barred judicial review of Plaintiff's APA challenge to USCIS's allegedly non-individualized review of humanitarian parole applications.
2. Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that USCIS violated the APA by failing to review the parole applications on a case-by-case basis and by failing to follow its own procedures.
3. Whether Plaintiff had a private cause of action and standing to enforce the case-by-case requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(C)'s express authorization for state attorneys general to bring actions.

Disposition

other