374 F. Supp. 3d 855
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- USCIS in 2018 adopted a new interpretation refusing to treat California Probate Court guardianship orders under Cal. Prob. Code § 1510.1 as satisfying SIJ (Special Immigrant Juvenile) statutory requirements for petitioners over 18.
- Plaintiffs (SIJ applicants) challenged that interpretation as final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing it is arbitrary, contrary to law, and promulgated without required notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Defendants argued the interpretation was interpretive (not final), relied on outdated SIJ regulations, and that REAL ID and other jurisdictional bars preclude relief.
- The court analyzed finality under the two-prong Bennett test, REAL ID Act limits (8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and § 1252(f)), arbitrary-and-capricious review under Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, and APA notice-and-comment requirements (5 U.S.C. § 553).
- The court concluded USCIS’s 2018 interpretation is a final agency action, not shielded by REAL ID limits, plausibly arbitrary and capricious, and constituted a substantive rule subject to notice-and-comment; plaintiffs also plausibly alleged a protected property interest in SIJ classification for due-process purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final agency action under Bennett | USCIS’s 2018 guidance/CHAP is final: it has legal effect and forecloses SIJ approvals based on § 1510.1 guardianships | The guidance is interpretive, not a final agency action | Guidance satisfies both Bennett prongs and is reviewable |
| REAL ID Act jurisdictional bar | Plaintiffs challenge unlawful SIJ interpretation, not removal decisions; real-party statutes don’t strip jurisdiction | REAL ID and §1252(f) prevent classwide injunctive relief and bar courts from hearing claims tied to removal | §1252(g) and §1252(f) do not preclude this suit; relief aimed at unlawful conduct, not blanket removal protection |
| Arbitrary & capricious under APA | New interpretation contradicts statute, TVPRA amendments, and California law; regulations cited are outdated | USCIS’s interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference; juvenile court must have power to order reunification | Court finds defendants’ interpretation unreasonable and reads in an extra statutory requirement |
| Notice-and-comment rulemaking (5 U.S.C. §553) | The 2018 guidance/CHAP is a substantive rule and required notice-and-comment | Policy manual/public availability suffices; interpretive guidance exempt from §553 | Policy change is a substantive rule that required notice-and-comment |
| Due process property interest | SIJ status confers substantive immigration protections and benefits; regulations create mutually explicit understandings supporting entitlement | SIJ classification involves DHS consent and is discretionary, so no protected entitlement | Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a protected property interest; factual questions remain about the discretionary nature of DHS consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (final agency action test)
- Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (review scope; uphold agency decisions if path reasonably discernible)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (searching and careful APA review)
- Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. United States, 465 F.3d 977 (agency instructions with enforcement have legal force)
- Navajo Nation v. U.S. National Park Service, 819 F.3d 1084 (agency application of law determined property rights)
- Budhathoki v. Nielsen, 898 F.3d 504 (5th Cir.; distinguishing orders that merely impose financial obligations)
- Perez v. Cissna, 914 F.3d 846 (4th Cir.; temporary custody orders insufficient for SIJ)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476 (property-interest/entitlement analysis under Due Process)