Emami v. Nielsen

Background

The court addressed two related cases: Emami v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv-01587-JD, and Pars Equality Center v. Blinken, No. 18-cv-07818-JD. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment—a ruling without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact—on claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. They relied on 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A) and (D). The order did not address the plaintiffs’ claims based on the Accardi doctrine.

The lawsuits concerned the Department of State’s implementation of a waiver process under Proclamation 9645. The plaintiffs identified waiver criteria including “undue burden,” “undue hardship,” “national interest,” and “national security.” They argued that the government had imposed overly narrow and restrictive limits on those criteria without rational explanations in the administrative record.

Mootness argument

The government argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot because President Biden had revoked Proclamation 9645 and, in the government’s view, the waiver process no longer existed. The court rejected that argument. It found that the plaintiffs had shown continuing injuries because their visa applications had been denied without an opportunity to apply under a properly administered waiver process. The court also found that even if the plaintiffs were allowed to reapply, they would face additional financial and other costs.

The court further explained that the government had not provided evidence showing that the agency guidance related to the proclamation had become defunct or had been withdrawn. Even assuming that the guidance had been withdrawn, the court concluded that a live dispute remained about the legality of the withdrawn materials.

Ruling

Judge Donato found that the plaintiffs had shown there was no genuine dispute about any material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Applying the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, the court ruled that the waiver implementation guidance was arbitrary and capricious because the government had adopted unduly narrow criteria without rational explanations supported by the administrative record.

Disposition and next steps

Summary judgment was granted in the plaintiffs’ favor on the relevant Administrative Procedure Act claims. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about procedures to confirm which affected applicants wanted reconsideration and to allow interested applicants to update their applications in the least burdensome way while providing material information needed by the government. The court changed the scheduled summary-judgment hearing to a status conference. It also stated that the plaintiffs’ notice-and-rulemaking and Accardi claims could be dismissed after the remedy issue was resolved, because the arbitrary-and-capricious claim should provide the total relief they were seeking.