SD Student Doe #1 v. Noem

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted an international F-1 student’s application for a temporary restraining order after ICE terminated the student’s SEVIS record based on a prior arrest and/or visa-related information. The court found that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on an Administrative Procedure Act claim and likely to suffer irreparable harm. The court ordered reinstatement of the SEVIS record, prohibited further termination action, and allowed the plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym with identifying information filed under seal.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff established the Winter factors and was entitled to a TRO preserving his SEVIS record and protecting him from specified immigration enforcement actions pending further proceedings.
2. Plaintiff was likely to succeed on his APA claim because the record did not show that ICE terminated his SEVIS record for a reason authorized by the applicable statutes and regulations.
3. Termination of plaintiff's SEVIS record was final agency action reviewable under the APA.
4. The Privacy Act did not provide an exclusive or adequate alternative remedy and therefore did not bar plaintiff's APA claim.
5. Plaintiff was permitted to proceed under the pseudonym SD Student Doe No. 1, and identifying information was required to be redacted from public filings and lodged under seal.
6. The court waived the Rule 65(c) bond requirement because there was no realistic likelihood of harm to defendants from the injunction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order under the Winter factors.
2. Whether termination of plaintiff's SEVIS record was likely unlawful under the APA because the agency failed to show compliance with the governing regulations.
3. Whether termination of the SEVIS record constituted final agency action reviewable under the APA.
4. Whether the Privacy Act supplied an exclusive and adequate alternative remedy barring plaintiff's APA claim.
5. Whether plaintiff could proceed under a pseudonym and file identifying information under seal.
6. Whether the court should require a bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Disposition

other