Greater Boston Legal Services v. United States Department of Homeland Security
1:21-cv-10083
| D. Mass. | Jun 21, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Greater Boston Legal Services and associated attorneys) represent noncitizens in immigration proceedings and challenged the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and associated agencies regarding document inspection rights in asylum cases.
- The key regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16), requires that applicants be permitted to inspect the record of proceeding forming the basis of an agency immigration decision.
- Plaintiffs claimed DHS/USCIS has an unwritten policy referring applicants to FOIA instead of direct inspection and does not provide timely access to records prior to asylum interviews, hindering effective representation.
- Defendants asserted that required information is provided at the asylum interview or can be obtained via FOIA, which the regulations do not preclude, and that their practices are consistent with longstanding policy reforms for administrative efficiency.
- After motions to dismiss and limited discovery regarding the administrative record and agency practice, each side moved for summary judgment solely on the APA-based claim regarding compliance with the inspection regulation.
- The District Court reviewed whether the alleged DHS policy violated § 103.2(b)(16), or was arbitrary and capricious under the APA standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS/USCIS policy violates 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) | DHS policy denies pre-interview inspection, violates regulation | Required disclosures are made at the interview; referring to FOIA doesn't violate the regulation | USCIS policy/practices do not violate § 103.2(b)(16); inspection right is satisfied |
| Timing/Scope of the Inspection Right | Applicants must access all relevant docs before the interview | Only need to disclose what forms basis of decision, timing not specified in regulation | Regulation does not specify timing; required docs provided at/as part of interview |
| Use of FOIA as sole pre-decision access mechanism | Reliance on FOIA delays access, undermines regulatory right | FOIA is permissible—regulation doesn't demand direct, expedited access outside of FOIA | FOIA usage is not inconsistent with regulatory text or arbitrary/capricious under APA |
| Arbitrary and Capricious Standard under APA | Policy changes disclosure procedures without reasoned explanation | Practice is justified by administrative necessity and regulatory changes for efficiency | No arbitrary/capricious agency action where interpretation/practice is reasonable and justified |
Key Cases Cited
- DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1 (2020) (courts should not substitute judgment for agency's when reviewing under APA)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (standards for facial challenges to agency policy)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016) (agencies must supply adequate reasons when changing regulatory interpretations)
- Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011) (agency approaches must be tied to statutory purpose)
- Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 2010) (due process requires access to immigration files in removal proceedings)