270 F. Supp. 3d 49
D.D.C.2017Background
- MAVNI allowed certain noncitizens with critical skills to enlist and pursue expedited naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1440; plaintiffs are MAVNI enlistees in the Selected Reserve who filed N-400s with DOD-certified N-426s.
- In 2016–2017 DOD began requiring enhanced security screening (Tier 3/5 SSBI, NIAC, CI review, possible polygraph) for MAVNI enlistees before basic training or active duty; USCIS then began withholding MAVNI N-400 adjudications pending completion of those DOD checks.
- USCIS issued July 7, 2017 guidance instructing field offices not to interview, approve, or oath MAVNI applicants until DOD’s enhanced checks were complete; defendants characterize this as coordination with DOD rather than an indefinite "hold."
- DOD initiated a review of N-426 issuance standards and stopped issuing new N-426s to MAVNIs without active-duty service; DOD stated it may revoke some previously issued N-426s for enlistees lacking creditable active-duty service, though revocations were not imminent.
- Plaintiffs allege DHS/USCIS unlawfully delayed and effectively halted adjudication in violation of the APA and that DOD’s N-426 review threatens their path to citizenship; some plaintiffs have lost lawful immigration status and face removal risk.
- The court conducted sealed review of classified national-security materials proffered by defendants and, on September 6, 2017, denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of USCIS requiring DOD enhanced security checks before adjudicating MAVNI N-400s (APA §706(2): contrary to law) | USCIS may not add an extra, substantive eligibility prerequisite; §1440 requires adjudication and N-426 certification; new screening exceeds statutory/regulatory authority | DHS/USCIS has broad statutory authority to investigate applicants’ moral character and may rely on DOD screening for national-security concerns | Denied — court found plaintiffs not likely to succeed on merits; enhanced screening not plainly unlawful given national-security concerns and statutory investigatory mandate |
| Arbitrary & capricious challenge to abrupt policy change (APA §706(2)(A)) | The screening requirement is a dramatic departure from longstanding USCIS practice and lacks reasoned explanation; it should be set aside | Defendants point to classified national-security findings; change responds to current security concerns and is not mere post hoc rationalization | Denied — court concluded the record (including classified materials reviewed in camera) showed a non-post-hoc, security-based rationale, so plaintiffs did not show likely success |
| Notice-and-comment requirement (APA §553) | The new requirement is a legislative rule imposing substantive obligations and required notice-and-comment | Defendants invoke national-security exception and argue the change falls within agency interpretive/procedural authority | Denied — court could not find plaintiffs likely to prevail given national-security justification and relevant exemptions |
| Preliminary relief against DOD’s N-426 review / irreparable harm from possible revocations | Plaintiffs argued imminent harm from potential revocation of existing N-426s and federal interference with naturalization eligibility | DOD represented that it had not imminently revoked any named-plaintiff N-426s and that revocation was under review; many N-426s remained valid | Denied as to DOD — plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm from revocation because revocations were not imminent; injunction against review unwarranted at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (irreparable-harm standard in preliminary-injunction context)
- De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945) (character of preliminary relief)
- Pursuing America’s Greatness v. Federal Election Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (merger of public-interest and balance-of-equities factors against the government)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors and government interest)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (scope of APA review and agency duties)
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, 556 U.S. 208 (2009) (reasonable agency interpretation of statute)
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (1994) (deference to agency interpretation where not in conflict with statute)
- Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (notice-and-comment analysis for security-related agency changes)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC factors for unreasonable delay)
- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (unreasonable-delay analysis requires fact-specific inquiry)