Doe v. Noem
3:25-cv-00023
W.D. Va.May 14, 2025Background
- John Doe, an international student at the University of Virginia, was notified that his F-1 student status and SEVIS record had been terminated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) based on an old, expunged misdemeanor battery charge and purported visa revocation.
- Doe had disclosed the incident in all prior immigration proceedings, never was convicted, and the incident was expunged; he had continued to travel internationally and re-enter the United States without incident.
- Upon learning of the SEVIS termination, Doe experienced academic, financial, and emotional harm, including inability to attend classes, risk to his scholarship, and anxiety over possible detention or deportation.
- Doe filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the SEVIS termination as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause, and moved for a temporary restraining order, which the court granted.
- While litigation was ongoing, the government implemented a new policy expanding ICE’s discretion to terminate SEVIS records, but did not provide specific relief to Doe.
- The court addressed Doe’s motion for a preliminary injunction, considering likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equities, and public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the APA allow a claim challenging SEVIS termination? | APA waives sovereign immunity and allows equitable relief for unlawful agency action. | Privacy Act provides exclusive remedy and precludes APA review. | APA allows the claim; Privacy Act is not exclusive and does not bar judicial review. |
| Was SEVIS termination arbitrary/capricious under the APA? | Termination was based on non-qualifying, expunged misdemeanor; regulations not met. | SEVIS record termination is distinct from F-1 status; action only flagged concerns. | Termination was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious under applicable regulations. |
| Is Plaintiff facing irreparable harm absent injunction? | SEVIS termination causes academic, financial, and psychological harm, and deportation risk. | Injunctive relief unnecessary; Doe is not actually out of status, harms are speculative. | Doe has shown irreparable harm, as the termination directly threatens his status and future. |
| Can the court enjoin the government's immigration authority? | Preliminary injunction is warranted to maintain status quo during litigation. | Broad immigration authority prohibits interference via injunction (citing statutes). | Injunction appropriate; statutes do not bar relief here since claim isn't removal-related. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (Section 1252(g) construed narrowly; does not bar general judicial review of agency actions)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (Limits of judicial review under immigration detention statutes explained)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (Addressed discretionary and statutory aspects of immigration detention)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (Federal government waives sovereign immunity only where specifically stated)
- Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42 (2024) (Privacy Act is not necessarily an exclusive remedy, does not preclude other claims)