In Setback to Trump Administration, Homeland Security Is Faulted by US Judge Over Denials of Protection to Young Immigrants
A Manhattan district court said Trump immigration officials were out of compliance with federal statutory language and New York state precedent in denying young immigrants special protection status without notice.
March 18, 2019 at 02:08 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security ran afoul of Administrative Procedure Act safeguards when it denied special status to several young immigrants in New York, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York ruled.
Koeltl granted summary judgment to the class of plaintiffs, all of whom were determined by New York state family courts to have been abused or neglected by their parents, but were subsequently denied special immigration juvenile status by DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The plaintiffs claimed federal officials had adopted a new policy around the immigration policy, without alerting anyone to the changes. They claim under the previous SIJ application process, their petitions would have been granted.
In his decision, Koeltl said that, despite claims to the contrary, it was “plain” that officials are out of compliance with federal immigration law by not allowing the state courts to issue necessary finding for juvenile immigrants between 18 and 21 years of age, which would enable them to obtain protected immigration status.
“If the immigration laws are to be changed in that way, the change must come from Congress and not from the immigration authorities,” Koeltl stated.
According to the plaintiffs' attorneys with The Legal Aid Society and Latham & Watkins, the announced policy impacted thousands of younger immigrants across the country.
“This sweeping decision leaves no doubt that USCIS deliberately violated the rights of the most vulnerable, young immigrants—those who were abused, neglected, or abandoned by their parents,” said Legal Aid Society supervising attorney Beth Krause, with the organization's immigration law unit. “We are relieved that the federal courts have once again been willing to rein in the arbitrary and capricious policies of the Trump administration.”
Latham & Watkins partner Robert Malionek noted in a statement that the special immigration juvenile status program was created in 1990 to protect a particularly vulnerable group of young immigrants. The suit challenged federal immigration authorities' move to disqualify New York state family courts as “juvenile courts” for immigrants in the early adult age range, despite the language in the federal statute and prior readings of New York state law.
“Our class, made up of thousands of abused, abandoned, or neglected young immigrants, once again have a path to citizenship,” Malionek said.
Koeltl ordered the plaintiffs to submit a proposed judgment with declaratory and injunctive relief recommendations by March 22, with federal authorities to reply a week later.
A spokeswoman for USCIS said the department was evaluating the decision but couldn't comment on litigation directly.
In a separate statement, USCIS spokeswoman Jessica Collins remarked on the SIJ program in general, saying the department will continue “to ensure that children who have required the protection of a juvenile court … receive the humanitarian benefits they are eligible for.”
“The agency's highly trained and experienced officers evaluate each petition individually, on a case-by-case basis, to determine if it qualifies for SIJ status according to our nation's laws and policies,” Collins said.
Related:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250