656 F.Supp.3d 274
D. Mass.2023Background
- Plaintiffs are noncitizens with Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification who sought Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(11).
- Statutory framework: 8 U.S.C. § 1255(h) deems SIJs "paroled" for purposes of adjustment of status (§1255(a)); EAD eligibility is regulated by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(9), (c)(11), and (c)(14).
- USCIS adopted a Policy Alert (Mar. 7, 2022) stating SIJ classification does not confer eligibility for EADs and announcing USCIS will instead grant deferred action case-by-case, making (c)(14) the route for many SIJs and displacing (c)(11).
- Plaintiffs initially filed (c)(11) EAD applications that were denied or pending; most named plaintiffs were later granted EADs under (c)(14). Plaintiffs challenge the agency policy refusing to consider (c)(11) for SIJs.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court held the motion and granted it, disposing of the action on statutory-interpretation grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Standing | Plaintiffs remain injured because they want EADs tied to SIJ status (more stable) rather than deferred action | No injury: plaintiffs received EADs under (c)(14), which are superior; relief would be futile | Court: Not moot — plaintiffs have a cognizable interest in EADs tied to SIJ status; challenge to ongoing policy is live |
| Final Agency Action (APA) | Policy Alert is final agency action and reviewable | No final action / no administrative record, so APA review improper | Court: Policy Alert is final, binding internal policy with legal consequences and is reviewable under Bennett test |
| Statutory Interpretation of §1255(h) and 8 C.F.R. §274a.12(c)(11) | §1255(h) should be read to mean SIJs are paroled pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1182(d)(5), so (c)(11) applies | §1255(h) merely deems SIJs paroled for purposes of §1255(a); (c)(11) applies only to parole pursuant to §1182(d)(5), so it does not cover SIJs | Court: Adopted defendant's textual reading; (c)(11) does not apply to SIJs paroled by operation of §1255(h); dismissal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (mootness standard for relief)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 567 U.S. 298 (mootness principles)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (test for final agency action under the APA)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requiring factual allegations)
- Cortés-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, 956 F.3d 36 (First Circuit Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (pleading standard guidance)
- Union of Concerned Scientists v. Wheeler, 954 F.3d 11 (policy directives may be final and reviewable)
- Osorio-Martinez v. Attorney General, 893 F.3d 153 (discussion of deferred action and stability)
- Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, 52 F.4th 40 (limits on mootness arguments tied to future revocation)
- Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (textualist restraint unless statute yields absurd result)