52 F.4th 821
9th Cir.2022Background:
- SIJ program gives certain immigrant juveniles a path to lawful permanent residence; 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2) mandates adjudication within 180 days of filing.
- Plaintiffs (three named petitioners and a certified Washington-state class of current and future SIJ petitioners) sued USCIS and DHS, alleging systemic delays beyond 180 days; district court found the delays unlawful (not contested on appeal).
- District court entered a permanent injunction requiring USCIS to adjudicate Washington SIJ petitions within 180 days and included a provision permitting petitioners (but not USCIS) to toll the deadline by requesting more time to respond to RFEs or NOIDs.
- Defendants appealed only the injunction and its terms/scope; they did not challenge the district court’s liability ruling.
- Ninth Circuit held the district court had jurisdiction despite Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez because the 180-day provision was enacted by the TVPRA (not the INA as amended by IIRIRA), affirmed entry of a permanent injunction generally, but vacated the petitioner-tolling provision as not narrowly tailored and inconsistent with regulations/statute, remanding for a possible case-by-case, good-cause tolling regime with definite limits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1252(f)(1) bars the district court from enjoining compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1232(d)(2) (Aleman Gonzalez jurisdictional bar) | Court has jurisdiction to enjoin compliance with §1232(d)(2) | §1252(f)(1) generally bars injunctions restraining operation of Part IV (thus bars injunction here) | Jurisdiction exists: §242(f)(1) (as enacted) applies to INA provisions amended by IIRIRA; §1232(d)(2) was enacted by TVPRA and is not within that scope, so §1252(f)(1) does not bar relief. |
| Whether a permanent injunction was appropriate after summary judgment for plaintiffs | Permanent injunction is necessary: ongoing irreparable harms, no adequate legal remedy, balance of hardships/public interest favor injunction | District court ignored operational hardships, relied on stale evidence, abused discretion | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; considered equities and evidence adequately. |
| Whether the injunction may strictly require adjudication within 180 days without tolling for RFEs/NOIDs or other operational needs | Strict 180-day enforcement prevents agency evasion and remedies unlawful delay | Strict rule prejudices USCIS operations and petitioners from other states; agency needs ability to toll for RFEs/NOIDs | Not an abuse of discretion on this record; injunction limited to Washington facts and may be revisited if circumstances change. |
| Whether the injunction may permit SIJ petitioners (but not USCIS) to toll the 180-day statutory deadline by requesting more time to respond to RFEs/NOIDs | Tolling by petitioners protects juveniles from being forced into forfeiture and provides necessary flexibility | Tolling provision conflicts with USCIS regulations, lacks individualized good-cause standard, and allows indefinite tolling contrary to statute | Vacated: broad petitioner-only tolling was an abuse of discretion. Remand to allow possible case-by-case tolling based on affirmative good cause and definite time limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022) (jurisdictional bar in §1252(f)(1) generally limits lower-court injunctions over certain INA provisions)
- United States v. Washington, 853 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2017) (standards for reviewing injunctions: clear error for facts, de novo for law, abuse of discretion for scope)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunctions)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (merger of hardship and public-interest factors when government is opponent)
- Hinkson v. United States, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion framework for equitable relief)
- Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2018) (injunctions must be narrowly tailored and respect administrative province)
- Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 36 F.4th 850 (9th Cir. 2022) (remand instructions to tailor injunctive relief)