Deshields v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
3:14-cv-00543
M.D. Fla.Mar 7, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Eunice Deshields applied for asylum (Form I-589); her daughter Efe was not listed on that application.
- Efe turned 21 while Deshields’s I-589 application was pending; Deshields’s I-589 was adjudicated before she filed Form I-730 for Efe.
- Plaintiff later filed Form I-730 seeking derivative asylum for Efe; USCIS denied derivative status because Efe had not been listed on the I-589 and was over 21 at I-589 adjudication.
- Magistrate Judge Richardson recommended denying Plaintiff’s summary judgment and granting Defendants’ motion; Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation.
- District court reviewed legal conclusions de novo, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings, and granted summary judgment for Defendants, overruling Plaintiff’s objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Form I-730 instructions improperly change substantive CSPA eligibility | Instructions to Form I-730 alter substantive eligibility under the CSPA and applicable regulations | Form instructions and 8 C.F.R. § 208.21 are consistent with the CSPA; listing child on I-589 is required to preserve age for derivative status | Denied: Form instructions and regulation are permissible; child’s age preserved only if listed on I-589 before adjudication |
| Whether USCIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying derivative asylum to Efe | USCIS’s denial was inconsistent with CSPA’s protection against aging out | USCIS properly applied regulation and Form instructions; Efe aged out when I-589 was adjudicated because she was not listed | Denied: USCIS decision not arbitrary; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether the regulation requiring listing of children on Form I-589 was invalid under the APA | (Implied) Regulation/instructions exceed statutory authority or alter CSPA protections | Regulation was duly promulgated under the APA and consistent with statute | Regulation valid and properly applied |
| Standard of review for Magistrate Judge’s Report | Objections asserted to legal conclusions | District court reviews legal conclusions de novo | Court adopted Magistrate Judge’s legal and factual conclusions; objections overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993) (district court need not de novo review factual findings absent specific objections)
- Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994) (legal conclusions in magistrate reports reviewed de novo)