Jacob v. Biden

Background

The plaintiffs were 2,196 immigrant-visa applicants or their United States citizen and lawful-permanent-resident family members. They sought to represent a proposed class of more than 450,000 applicants in immediate-relative and family-preference categories, along with a limited number of 2021 Diversity Visa lottery selectees.

The lawsuit challenged Presidential Proclamation 10014 and its extensions, which suspended the entry of most immigrants subject to limited exceptions. It also challenged the Department of State’s related “No-Visa Policy,” which allegedly suspended the processing and issuance of visas for applicants covered by the entry ban. The plaintiffs alleged that these actions violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.

On February 24, 2021, Presidential Proclamation 10149 rescinded Proclamation 10014 and its extensions. The Department of State then directed consular posts to process immigrant-visa applications without regard to Proclamation 10014 and to prioritize applications previously refused solely because of that proclamation. The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the rescission had made the case moot and deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Family-preference and IR-5 plaintiffs

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Department of State’s ongoing “Diplomacy Strong” framework continued the challenged No-Visa Policy. The court found no evidence that the Department was failing to implement the rescission and concluded that current restrictions were based on pandemic conditions, resource limits, and employee health and safety rather than Proclamation 10014.

The plaintiffs also argued that a later tiered visa-prioritization system caused continuing harm by processing immediate-relative visas faster than family-preference and diversity visas. The court held that this theory challenged a different Department of State policy that was not alleged in the operative complaint and was not connected to Proclamation 10014 or the earlier No-Visa Policy.

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that residual delays caused by Proclamation 10014 and its implementation were a legally recognized injury. It found that those delays were traceable to the defendants. But it held that the family-preference and IR-5 plaintiffs lacked standing for the prospective relief they sought because the requested classwide remedy was not practically redressable. Moving roughly 1.9 million applications to the front of the line would displace other applicants, and broadly ordering faster processing would require the court to oversee complex staffing, training, reopening, and public-health decisions.

The court also held that neither the voluntary-cessation exception nor the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception saved these claims from mootness. The rescinding proclamation was broad and unequivocal, the Government had directed processing without regard to Proclamation 10014, and the plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable expectation that they would face the same policy again.

DV-2021 plaintiffs

The court reached a different standing conclusion for the 2021 Diversity Visa selectees. Under the governing immigration statute, they had to receive their visas by September 30, 2021, or permanently lose the opportunity to immigrate through those approved applications. The court found that the earlier entry ban and No-Visa Policy had frozen diversity-visa issuance for a significant period and that the resulting risk of missing the deadline was concrete, imminent, and potentially irreparable.

Unlike the requested relief for the much larger family-based group, the court found that relief for DV-2021 selectees could be tailored to their specific harm without displacing other documentarily qualified applicants. It therefore held that the DV-2021 plaintiffs and the proposed class they represented had standing and that their claims were not moot.

Motions and disposition

The court held that the operative First Amended Complaint did not properly allege a class action: it did not define a class, explain why the requirements for class certification were met, or expressly request class certification. As a result, the court denied the DV-2021 plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and motion for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice, meaning those motions could be renewed after amendment. The court granted them leave to file a Second Amended Complaint properly alleging a class action and to renew both motions.

The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss as to the family-preference and IR-5 plaintiffs and denied it as to the DV-2021 plaintiffs. It denied the class-certification, preliminary-injunction, and expedited-discovery motions as moot and for lack of standing as they related to the family-preference and IR-5 plaintiffs. As to the DV-2021 plaintiffs, it denied the class-certification and preliminary-injunction motions without prejudice and denied the expedited-discovery motion because the requested information had already been provided in the Government’s status reports. The order set deadlines for the amended complaint and renewed motions and scheduled a hearing.