Doe 1-4 v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

This case is an immigration mandamus action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs, identified as Does I-IV, objected to the completeness of the administrative record—the collection of materials that the agency considered in making the challenged decisions.

USCIS approved Doe I’s O-1 nonimmigrant status and an immigrant petition seeking classification as a noncitizen of extraordinary ability. Doe I later filed an application to become a lawful permanent resident. USCIS issued a notice of intent to revoke the first immigrant petition, later revoked it, denied a second immigrant petition, and denied the application for permanent-resident status. The court’s earlier order required the government to add documents explaining a three-year delay in adjudicating Doe I’s application. The government then filed a notice stating that the administrative record was complete.

Parties’ Arguments

The plaintiffs again objected. They argued that the government had used an improperly narrow standard by including only documents considered by the adjudicating officer, rather than all documents before the deciding agency. They specifically pointed to possible materials concerning Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s involvement. They also argued that redactions in an email chain showed that the record was incomplete.

The government argued that the proper record includes documents directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers and that the completed record satisfied that standard.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an agency record generally includes all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by the agency decision-makers. The agency’s certification that the record is complete receives a presumption of regularity, which plaintiffs may overcome with clear evidence. To do so, they must identify a reasonable basis to believe that materials are missing and describe the allegedly omitted materials with sufficient specificity.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not meet that standard. USCIS, rather than Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the decisions at issue: approving and revoking Doe I’s immigrant petition and denying the immigrant petitions and adjustment application. The record included the documents considered by USCIS decision-makers, as well as the additional documents ordered to explain the delay. The record also revealed that the delay involved requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold the application in abeyance and the discovery of potential fraud and ineligibility.

The court stated that the plaintiffs could challenge the USCIS revocations and denials as arbitrary and capricious and could argue that the reasons for the delay support that challenge. But they were not entitled to documents underlying a separate decision by a different agency merely because Immigration and Customs Enforcement was involved.

The court treated the redaction issue separately from the scope of the administrative record. The plaintiffs and defendants had reserved their rights to challenge the privilege designations. The court stated that its ruling did not prevent the plaintiffs from raising those challenges, which would be referred to Magistrate Judge van Keulen.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman overruled the plaintiffs’ objection to the completeness of the administrative record and directed the parties to submit a stipulated schedule for summary-judgment briefing for the court’s approval. The opinion did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ challenges to the underlying immigration decisions.