Blajro v. Citizenship, 811 F.3d 1086

Background

Plaintiffs James Mayock (immigration attorney) and Mirsad Hajro (naturalization applicant) sued USCIS alleging FOIA timing violations and sought enforcement of a 1992 settlement between Mayock and INS.
Plaintiffs asserted (1) the 1992 Settlement Agreement required expedited processing in some cases and (2) USCIS has a pattern or practice of failing to meet FOIA’s 20‑day timing and notice requirements.
The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on most claims, entered a nationwide permanent injunction, and later awarded fees; USCIS appealed the summary judgment and fees.
Key procedural issue: USCIS filed a premature notice of appeal after the summary judgment order but before the district court entered the final injunction.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed (a) appellate jurisdiction over the summary judgment and injunction, (b) whether Kokkonen’s jurisdictional rule applies retroactively to the 1992 settlement, (c) whether FOIA’s waiver of sovereign immunity permits enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, and (d) standing for a FOIA “pattern or practice” claim (Mayock and Hajro).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over appeal of summary judgment and later permanent injunction	USCIS’s premature notice of appeal should be treated as filed on the date of final judgment, preserving challenge to injunction	FRAP 4(a)(2) does not save the premature appeal of the injunction because the injunction’s final language remained contested and was not merely ministerial	Court has jurisdiction over the summary judgment order but lacks jurisdiction to review the permanent injunction challenge; injunction vacated as a consequence of reversal on other grounds
Retroactivity of Kokkonen re: enforcement of settlement agreements	Plaintiffs argued Kokkonen should not apply retroactively to a 1992 settlement	Kokkonen applies to jurisdictional rules and must be given retroactive effect	Kokkonen applies retroactively; district court lacked inherent ancillary jurisdiction because it neither incorporated the settlement nor expressly retained jurisdiction
Waiver of sovereign immunity to enforce Settlement Agreement via supplemental jurisdiction	Plaintiffs argued FOIA and related regulations permit enforcement/supplemental jurisdiction over settlement obligations	Government argued FOIA’s waiver is limited and does not unequivocally waive sovereign immunity to enforce private settlement terms	No unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity in FOIA to enforce the Settlement Agreement; claims to enforce it (Claims One & Two) reversed
Standing for a FOIA pattern-or-practice claim	Plaintiffs asserted pattern-or-practice standing based on (a) multiple delayed responses (26 declarations) and (b) their own delayed requests	USCIS challenged whether Mayock suffered personal injury and whether Hajro retained a likelihood of future harm	Court clarified a three‑part standing test for FOIA pattern-or-practice claims: (1) pattern not isolated, (2) plaintiff personally harmed, (3) likelihood of future harm. Remanded for fact‑finding on Mayock’s personal harm and future risk; Hajro’s claim is moot after he was naturalized

Key Cases Cited

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (district courts lack ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlements absent incorporation or an express retention of jurisdiction)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
FirsTier Mortgage Ins. Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) (FRAP 4(a)(2) rescues premature notices only when the announced decision would be appealable if immediately followed by entry of judgment)
Mayock v. Nelson, 938 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1991) (recognition of FOIA pattern-or-practice claims for unreasonable delay)
Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (pattern-or-practice claim asks whether policy will impair future lawful access to information)
Long v. I.R.S., 693 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1982) (injunctive relief under FOIA requires demonstration that illegal conduct will recur)