Norris McLaughlin Backs Paterson Diocese in Fight Over Immigrant Priests

A New Jersey Roman Catholic diocese is fighting back against an administrative action by the U.S. Department of State that shifted the calculation of visa availability under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would result in priests from Morris, Passaic and Sussex counties having to abruptly leave the country.

This suit was surfaced by Law.com Radar, ALM’s source for immediate alerting on just-filed cases in state and federal courts. Law.com Radar now offers state court coverage nationwide. Sign up today and be among the first to know about new suits in your region, practice area or client sector.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson, along with five priests, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in The Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey v. U.S. Department of State on Thursday. In addition to naming the U.S. Department of State, the complaint levied claims against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and several individual defendants in their official capacity.

The diocese and priests are represented by Robert Mahoney, Raymond G. Lahoud and J. Alexander Short of Norris McLaughlin. Lahoud declined to comment on the case.

The rule change in question dealt with the calculation of visa availability under the INA. The State Department announced it was no longer assigning separate final action and filing dates for individuals chargeable to any of the Northern Central American countries in the employment-based fourth preference category, according to the complaint. The priests named in the complaint immigrated from Columbia and the Philippines.

“This sudden and abrupt agency action deviated from years-long practice and has profound repercussions for, inter alia, nonimmigrant religious workers in the United States and religious organizations in the United States, including plaintiffs,” the complaint said.

The complaint alleged that the defendants misinterpreted the law, failed to provide sufficient public notice of the policy change, failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures, failed to allow for comments to the proposed change, and continue to enforce an incorrectly interpreted law on countless nonimmigrant religious workers.

The challenged provision was issued March 28, 2023, when it was published in the Federal Register. It took effect on May 1, 2023, and provided no public comment period, according to the complaint. It also said that the abrupt shift in visa availability is a substantial burden to the plaintiffs and impacts their ability to engage in their religious service without substantial interruption by the federal government.

The complaint also said that the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs directly relate to a severe shortage of religious workers in the U.S. and that the defendants exacerbated that shortage despite being aware of the issue. It alleged that the shortage is directly related to increasing delays affecting religious workers under the act.

“It is well-documented that Roman Catholic Churches in the United States are facing substantial hardship in recruiting home-grown clergy due to decades of declining church attendance and the significant damaging effects of widespread clergy abuse scandals,” the complaint said. “Between 1970 and 2020, ‘the number of priests in the U.S. dropped by 60%. … This has left more than 3,500 parishes without a resident pastor.’”

The eight-count complaint included alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Congressional Review Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the free exercise clause in the First Amendment, among other claims.

“The impact of defendants’ interpretation creates unwarranted discrimination against nonimmigrant religious workers and their religious employers, which is not narrowly tailored to advance any important or compelling government interest,” the complaint said.

The plaintiffs sought relief in the form of an injunction requiring the defendants to remedy the alleged constitutional violations, including enforcement of the March 2023 rule, as well as attorney fees and costs, among other requests.

Counsel had yet to enter an appearance for the defendants.