Deshields v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
3:14-cv-00543
M.D. Fla.Dec 9, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Eunice Deshields, a Nigerian national, was granted asylum in the U.S. in 2007 and filed Form I-730 in 2007 seeking derivative asylum for her daughter Efe (born 1982).
- USCIS denied the I-730 on January 2, 2014, because Efe was not listed on Plaintiff’s original asylum application (Form I-589) prior to adjudication, as required by the Form I-730 instructions.
- Plaintiff conceded her mandamus claim should be dismissed and proceeded under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706) to challenge the denial as unlawful.
- Plaintiff argued USCIS relied on non-binding policy memoranda (and thus acted ultra vires) rather than valid binding rules; she also argued the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) did not require listing on Form I-589.
- Defendants relied on the Form I-730 instructions and 8 C.F.R. § 208.3(a), asserting the regulation and form instructions lawfully require listing unmarried children under 21 on Form I-589 and that denial was supported by substantial evidence.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Defendants and denying Plaintiff’s motion, finding the agency’s interpretation reasonable and the denial not arbitrary or unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USCIS lawfully denied Form I-730 because the derivative was not listed on Form I-589 before adjudication | Form I-730 denial rests on agency policy memoranda and is ultra vires; CSPA does not mandate listing on I-589 | Form I-730 instructions and 8 C.F.R. § 208.3(a) validly require listing dependents on Form I-589; denial consistent with those instructions | Held for Defendants: denial upheld; instructions/regulation are a permissible construction and supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether agency action was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence | Agency skipped required rulemaking and misapplied CSPA to Plaintiff’s facts | Agency relied on incorporated form instructions and regulation; Plaintiff had opportunity to comply | Held for Defendants: not arbitrary or capricious; no de novo fact reweighing; record supports denial |
| Whether form instructions have force of law and require notice via I-589 | Plaintiff contends CSPA’s plain meaning controls and agency cannot impose via guidance | Form instructions are incorporated into regulations (8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1)); listing requirement is regulatory and consistent with statute | Held for Defendants: form instructions are binding and consistent with statutory delegation |
| Whether relief under mandamus or APA was appropriate | Plaintiff sought mandamus but conceded APA remedy sufficed | Defendants argued APA is the proper remedy and mandamus should be dismissed | Mandamus claim dismissed; APA review applied and favoring agency decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, 701 F.3d 896 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for viewing facts on cross-motions for summary judgment)
- Mahon v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (deference and arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency action)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (when agency action is arbitrary or capricious)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard for administrative fact findings)
- Ramirez-Coria v. Holder, 761 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2014) (agency may deny where applicant fails to follow form instructions)
- Farag v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 531 F. Supp. 2d 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (granting derivative asylum rests within USCIS discretion)