Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf

Background

The plaintiffs are Immigrant Legal Resource Center; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights; Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; International Rescue Committee; OneAmerica; Asian Counseling and Referral Service; and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. The defendants are Alejandro N. Mayorkas, under the title of Secretary of Homeland Security; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ur M. Jaddou, under the title of Director; and U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.

On February 10, 2021, the court stayed the case and held all proceedings in abeyance so the Secretary of Homeland Security could undertake a review contemplated by Executive Order 14,012. The court later approved nine successive requests to continue holding the case in abeyance. The most recent prior order required a joint status report by November 15, 2024.

The Parties’ Positions

The parties reported that the Department of Homeland Security had issued a final rule on January 31, 2024, adjusting fees for certain immigration and naturalization benefit requests. That rule took effect on April 1, 2024, and replaced the 2020 rule challenged in this case.

The defendants’ position was that the case was moot because the 2024 final rule had entirely replaced the 2020 rule. The plaintiffs’ position was that the case was not moot because they had not received all available relief, including a permanent injunction against the 2020 rule, which the Department of Homeland Security had not rescinded.

The parties asked the court to administratively close the case until related litigation was resolved or the Department of Homeland Security took further action affecting the case. Alternatively, they requested a stay of at least six months.

Order

The court ordered that the case remain stayed and that all proceedings remain in abeyance. It ordered the parties to file a joint status report no later than February 13, 2025, stating whether the case and all proceedings should continue to be held in abeyance or proposing a schedule for continuing the litigation.

The order did not decide whether the case was moot, did not administratively close the case, and did not resolve the underlying challenge to the immigration-fee rule.