The Catholic University of America

Welcome to the Immigration section of our webpage. This front page will reflect our most current information on immigration law affecting educational institutions.

 Regents of California and Napolitano v. DHS, (U.S. Dist. Court, N. California) (Jan. 19, 2018)
Plaintiffs sought provisional relief from governmental recission of DACA. Government moved to dismiss, but court granted some provisional relief.  This case is 5 different cases that ended up before the same judge. From page 13 of the injunction: 

UC Plaintiffs allege they have invested considerable resources in recruiting students and staff who are DACA recipients, and that these individuals make important contributions to the University. As DACA recipients lose their work authorizations, UC Plaintiffs allege that the University will lose significant intellectual capital and productivity. They further allege that students who lose DACA protections will be unable “to plan for the future, apply for and obtain internships and certain financial aid and scholarships, study abroad, or work to pay their tuition and other expenses,” and as a result may withdraw from the University altogether.

At page 29 the Court found the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on the merits and that plaintiffs had demonstrated irreparable harm.  

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the rescission
was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in accordance with law.
Specifically, plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that: (1) the agency’s decision to rescind DACA was based on a flawed legal premise; and (2) government counsel’s supposed “litigation risk” rationale is a post hoc rationalization and would be, in any event, arbitrary and capricious.

 And at page 44-45

 Delays in this case, however, have made it impossible to send a final judgment to our
court of appeals by March 5. To take only one example, it would be unfair to reach a conclusion without giving plaintiffs an opportunity to examine the complete administrative record. Government counsel, however, succeeded in obtaining an order from the Supreme Court postponing proceedings on completing the administrative record until after ruling on its FRCP 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. As a result, we have yet to receive a complete administrative record. Although plaintiffs are likely to prevail on even the truncated administrative record, as set forth above, our appellate court might disagree with that conclusion or the agency might seek to cure the flaws in its process via a fresh agency action. Plaintiffs are entitled to learn of all flaws, if any more there be, lurking in the whole record. One such possibility suggested by plaintiffs is that the rescission was contrived to give the administration a bargaining chip to demand funding for a border wall in exchange for reviving DACA. A presidential tweet after our hearing gives credence to this claim. Another possibility raised by plaintiffs is racial animus. These theories deserve the benefit of the full administrative record. It will be impossible to litigate this case to a fair and final conclusion before March 5.

***

For the reasons DACA was instituted, and for the reasons tweeted by President Trump,
this order finds that the public interest will be served by DACA’s continuation (on the conditions and exceptions set out below). Beginning March 5, absent an injunction, one thousand individuals per day, on average, will lose their DACA protection. The rescission will result in hundreds of thousands of individuals losing their work authorizations and deferred action status.
This would tear authorized workers from our nation’s economy and would prejudice their being able to support themselves and their families, not to mention paying taxes to support our nation. Too, authorized workers will lose the benefit of their employer-provided healthcare plans and thus place a greater burden on emergency healthcare services.

And at page 46, Provisional Relief Ordered: 

For the foregoing reasons, defendants ARE HEREBY ORDERED AND ENJOINED, pending final judgment herein or other order, to maintain the DACA program on a nationwide basis on the same terms and conditions as were in effect before the rescission on September 5, 2017, including allowing DACA enrollees to renew their enrollments, with the exceptions (1) that new applications from applicants who have never before received deferred action need not be processed; (2) that the advance parole feature need not be continued for the time being for anyone; and (3) that defendants may take administrative steps to make sure fair discretion is exercised on an individualized basis for each renewal application.
Nothing in this order prohibits the agency from proceeding to remove any individual,
including any DACA enrollee, who it determines poses a risk to national security or public safety, or otherwise deserves, in its judgment, to be removed. Nor does this order bar the agency from granting advance parole in individual cases it finds deserving, or from granting deferred action to new individuals on an ad hoc basis.
The agency shall post reasonable public notice that it will resume receiving DACA
renewal applications and prescribe a process consistent with this order. The agency shall keep records of its actions on all DACA-related applications and provide summary reports to the Court (and counsel) on the first business day of each quarter. 

See also NYTimes, Trump Must Keep DACA Protections for Now, Judge Says, Jan. 9, 2018

Dec. 4, 2017 Supreme Court Order allowing Travel Ban to proceed*

For a full summary see: 

Klasko Client Alert: Supreme Court allows  Sept. 24 Entry Restrictions to go into Effect*

For more on the legal status of pending appeals see the New York Times article by Adam Liptak titled Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect

Client Alert, Klasko Immigration Partners; Nov. 3, 2017 on the USCIS 10-23-17 Policy Memo on Deference to Prior Adjudications

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (D. Md. October 17, 2017

Memorandum and Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, consisting of twenty-three individuals and seven organizations, challenged the President's Proclamation 9645, which indefinitely barred the entry into the United States of foreign nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela, because of identified security inadequacies related to terrorism and other public-safety threats. The court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 2 of the Executive Order, which was the section banning foreign nationals from predominantly Muslim countries.  

Order Granting TRO, Hawaii v. Trump, Case # 17-00050, (U.S. Dis. Ct. Hawaii) 10-17-17 

This TRO prevents the administration from restricting the entry of travelers from all the predominantly Muslim countries included in the ban, so the ban only applies for now to travelers from North Korea and Venezuela. This is a nationwide TRO. The court found that the ban contained in the Executive Order issued Sept. 24, 2017 did not contrain sufficient findings that the entry of the foreign nationals from the six specified Muslim countires would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. The ban contained a restriction on entry for an indefinite time period. At pages 230 the court noted as follows; 

First, EO-3, like its predecessor, makes “no finding that nationality alone
renders entry of this broad class of individuals a heightened security risk to the
United States.” Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 772 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
EO-3 “does not tie these nationals in any way to terrorist organizations within the six
designated countries,” find them “responsible for insecure country conditions,” or
provide “any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit
terrorism or their inherent dangerousness.

Second, EO-3 does not reveal why existing law is insufficient to address the President’s described concerns. As the Ninth Circuit previously explained with respect to EO-2, “[a]s the law stands, a visa applicant bears the burden of showing that the applicant is eligible to receive a visa . . . and is not inadmissible.”

Third, EO-3 contains internal incoherencies that markedly undermine its
stated “national security” rationale.16 Numerous countries fail to meet one or more
of the global baseline criteria described in EO-3, yet are not included in the ban.

Supreme Court Cancels Hearing on Previous Trump Travel Ban (NYTimes)

Proclamation of Sept. 24, 2017 pursuant to Section 2(e) of EO 13780 (restricting entry to nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia: See the NAFSA page for a complete summary of the indefinite entry bar. 

The September 24, 2017 effective date applies to nationals of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia who were subject to the 90-day entry ban of Executive Order 13780 who "lack credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

The October 18, 2017 effective date applies to all nationals of Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela, and to nationals of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

See also the Klasko Immigration Law Partners Client Alert (9-25-17)

 DACA

Memorandum on Rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Sept. 5, 2017**

FAQ on DACA Rescission*

Press Release on Recission *

Letter from U.S. AG to DHS*

Klasko Newsletter: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to be Phased Out Beginning on March 5, 2018*

Jackson Lewis: Sept. 6, 2017 Newsletter on DACA

ACE Issue Brief Rescission of DACA*