Nio v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Civil Action No. 2017-0998
| D.D.C. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are MAVNI enlistees who served honorably in the Selected Reserve and submitted N-400 naturalization applications with military-certified Form N-426s; they challenge delays and N-426 decertifications tied to enhanced DOD security screening.
- Plaintiffs sued DHS/USCIS and DOD under the Constitution and the APA seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief; they moved to certify a class of similarly situated MAVNI Selected Reservists.
- DOD issued October 13, 2017 Guidance (Section III) directing recall/decertification of N-426s for certain enlistees who had not completed enhanced screening; DHS/USCIS was waiting for DOD screening before adjudicating N-400s.
- Plaintiffs’ proposed class was limited to MAVNI Selected Reservists who enlisted before October 13, 2017, have valid N-426s, pending N-400s, and whose adjudications were delayed or affected by the DHS/USCIS screening hold and DOD policies.
- The Court considered Rule 23(a) factors (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) and granted class certification with a modified class definition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) | Common legal questions about the legality of DHS/USCIS screening hold and DOD N-426 policy apply to all class members; named plaintiffs typify class | Factual variations (screening status, N-426 validity, individualized background checks, varying delay lengths) defeat commonality/typicality/adequacy | Court held Rule 23(a) satisfied: factual variations do not defeat class when common legal questions about standardized policies exist |
| Whether class fits Rule 23(b)(1)(A) (risk of inconsistent adjudications) | Certification under (b)(1)(A) appropriate because uniform injunctive/declaratory relief is sought to change an ongoing course of conduct | Defendants did not meaningfully oppose (conceded by silence); argued merits would preclude relief later | Court certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(A); defendants’ failure to rebut treated as concession and court independently satisfied the rule |
| Whether class fits Rule 23(b)(2) (uniform injunctive/declaratory relief appropriate) | A single injunction or declaration invalidating or restraining the uniform policies (USCIS holding N-400s pending DOD, DOD decertifying N-426s) would provide classwide relief | Defendants argued individualized determinations about fitness make classwide relief inappropriate | Court held (b)(2) satisfied because plaintiffs challenge standardized policies, not individual adjudications |
| Appointment of class counsel and adequacy of representation | Plaintiffs’ counsel have relevant experience, resources, and have investigated claims; will fairly and vigorously represent class | Defendants claimed counsel lacked specific class-action immigration experience; alleged potential conflicts from factual differences | Court found counsel adequate under Rule 23(g) and no antagonistic conflicts; counsel appointed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class-commonality and typicality principles)
- Garcia v. Johanns, 444 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 23 standards)
- Nat’l Veterans Legal Servs. Program v. United States, 235 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C.) (numerosity/joinder considerations)
- McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406 (D.C. Cir.) (class numerosity precedent)
- DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir.) (uniform policies supporting class treatment)
- R.I.L.-R. v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C.) (class certification on systemic government policies)
- Radosti v. Envision EMI, LLC, 717 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C.) (typicality and class-claims analysis)
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir.) (adequacy of representation factors)