Gabriel Ruiz-Diaz v. United States
703 F.3d 483
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs comprise non-citizen religious workers and their employers challenging a DOJ regulation governing adjustment of status for those workers.
- Regulation 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) bars concurrent filing for special immigrant religious workers (fourth preference) and requires petition approval before filing.
- Plaintiffs seek to file adjustment applications concurrently with petitions, as allowed for other employment-based categories, to avoid delays.
- The case follows Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 618 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2010), and was remanded to the district court, which rejected plaintiffs’ arguments; this appeal follows.
- The core issues concern RFRA, equal protection, and due process challenges to the concurrent-filing ban and the related processing delays.
- The court ultimately held that delays stem from processing times and that the regulation does not violate RFRA, equal protection, or due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA burden on religious exercise | Ruiz-Diaz argues regulation substantially burdens religion | Regulation does not prevent religious practice or impose a substantial burden | RFRA not violated |
| Equal protection challenge | Regulation irrationally discriminates against religious workers | Differences rationally related to fraud concerns in the program | Rational-basis review sustains regulation |
| Due process challenge | Delay to filing infringes entitlement to government benefit | No entitlement to concurrent filings; delay from processing is general | No due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantial burden requires forced choice or coercion; RFRA intended to restore protection)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (example of compelled religious sacrifice for benefits protected by RFRA)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (religious-liberty protection against state interest in compulsory schooling)
- Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (RFRA restored to counter Smith limitations)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (immigration classifications reviewed under rational basis)
- Ex Parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941) (due process limits on procedural barriers to petition)
- Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1990) (due process considerations in asylum/notice contexts)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (requirement of legitimate entitlement for due process claim)
- Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 618 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirmed agency interpretation; remanded for further contentions)