A.O. v. Cuccinelli

Background

The plaintiffs—A.O., A.S.R., L.C., R.M., and I.Z.M.—moved for a preliminary injunction on behalf of themselves and a proposed class. They challenged a USCIS policy called the “reunification authority requirement.” Under that policy, USCIS required a state court finding that the court had authority to reunite an immigrant child with a parent before accepting the court’s finding that reunification was not viable for purposes of Special Immigrant Juvenile status.

The Special Immigrant Juvenile statute requires, among other things, that an applicant be under 21, unmarried, declared dependent on a qualifying United States juvenile court, receive a finding that reunification with one or both parents is not viable because of abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law, and receive a finding that returning to the applicant’s or parent’s previous country would not be in the applicant’s best interest. The court explained that California law gives its juvenile courts authority to make the custody-and-care determinations relevant to these petitions.

Each named plaintiff had been declared dependent on a California juvenile court and had received findings about nonviable reunification and best interests. USCIS denied the SIJ petitions of L.C., R.M., and I.Z.M.; A.O.’s petition was pending when the motion was filed; and A.S.R. had received a notice of intent to deny. The denials stated that the submitted evidence did not establish that the state court had authority under state law to make a legal conclusion about returning the applicant to parental custody.

Mootness

The defendants argued that the case was moot because USCIS announced in October 2019 that it had abandoned the reunification authority requirement and because a settlement in another case would result in adjudication of the proposed class members’ petitions. The court rejected both arguments.

The court found that USCIS had not shown that the challenged policy could not reasonably return. The agency’s documents did not formalize the change through rulemaking or a statutory amendment, and the press release stated that the adopted decisions did not create legally binding rights or change substantive requirements. The court also found that the announced change applied only to “pending and future petitions” without defining “pending,” leaving uncertainty about whether it addressed earlier denials and pending requests for evidence or notices of intent to deny.

The court further determined that the settlement in the other case did not moot this action. It reasoned that the settlement’s relief applied to that case’s class members, not necessarily to people who merely appeared on an overinclusive class list. The court therefore proceeded to the preliminary-injunction analysis.

Preliminary-Injunction Analysis

A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before final judgment. To obtain one, a plaintiff generally must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction serves the public interest.

Likelihood of success

The plaintiffs argued that the reunification authority requirement violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs certain federal agency actions, and the Fifth Amendment’s due-process guarantee. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claims.

First, the court concluded that the requirement was inconsistent with the plain text of the SIJ statute. The federal statute and regulation require a qualifying juvenile court to have jurisdiction under state law to make judicial determinations about juveniles’ custody and care. California law expressly grants its superior courts authority to make the relevant SIJ findings. The court found no federal requirement that the state court also have authority to order reunification of the child with a parent.

Second, the court found that USCIS had not provided a satisfactory explanation for imposing the new requirement. The record did not show that USCIS had examined relevant data or explained the connection between the facts and the policy.

Third, the court found that the requirement was a substantive rule change rather than merely an interpretation of existing policy. Because USCIS applied it in a binding manner when denying SIJ petitions, the court concluded that the agency had to follow the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures and had failed to do so.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that there was no final agency action for APA review. It found that USCIS’s adoption of the reunification authority requirement marked the completion of the agency’s decision-making process and directly affected the plaintiffs.

Irreparable harm, equities, and public interest

The court found that the plaintiffs had shown likely irreparable harm. Denial of SIJ status could cause them to lose eligibility for green cards and related benefits, and could expose them to removal from the United States. The court also considered the plaintiffs’ described fear, uncertainty, and emotional and psychological harm, which it found could not be remedied through money damages.

Because the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the policy violated federal law, was arbitrary and capricious, and was adopted without required procedures, the court found that the balance of equities and the public interest also favored an injunction. It concluded that all four preliminary-injunction factors were satisfied.

Order and scope

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. During the case, the defendants and people acting with them were enjoined and restrained from denying SIJ petitions because a California juvenile court lacked authority to reunite an 18-to-20-year-old with a parent.

The injunction also barred the defendants from starting removal proceedings against or removing an SIJ petitioner who had been declared dependent under Section 300 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code and whose petition had been denied on that reunification-authority ground. The defendants were required to give plaintiffs’ counsel at least 14 days’ notice before taking adverse adjudicatory or enforcement action against any plaintiff or proposed class member. The court required the parties to file a joint case-management statement within 30 days and required the plaintiffs to move for class certification within 90 days.