286 F. Supp. 3d 1239
D.N.M.2017Background
- UDV is a Christian spiritualist organization whose theology forbids paying ministers; much liturgy is transmitted orally and J. Garcia is the most experienced UDV minister in the U.S.
- USCIS previously approved R-1 petitions for J. Garcia (religious worker status) but later denied a 2017 R-1 petition and indicated intent to deny a pending I-360 (special immigrant religious worker) petition because UDV does not compensate clergy.
- Denial of R-1 (and potential denial of I-360) leaves J. Garcia and his family without immigration status; unlawful presence risks triggering bars to reentry and prevents J. Garcia from traveling to perform religious duties.
- Plaintiffs moved for a TRO / preliminary injunction under RFRA to require USCIS to reconsider/grant the R-1 petition and to adjudicate the I-360 within 14 days; defendants argued APA procedures and mootness, and emphasized immigration enforcement interests.
- The Court held evidentiary hearings, accepted extrarecord evidence for the RFRA motion, and concluded RFRA (not the APA) governed the injunctive request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APA record-rule/procedures limit review of the TRO/PI motion | Motion proceeds under RFRA; RFRA provides a judicial remedy distinct from APA review | APA governs review of agency action; relief seeking agency action is constrained by APA/Norton | Court: APA procedural record-rule does not apply to this RFRA-based injunction motion |
| Whether RFRA claim likely to succeed on the merits | USCIS application of compensation/missionary regulations substantially burdens sincere religious exercise; RFRA requires strict scrutiny and defendants haven’t shown least-restrictive means | USCIS regulations prevent fraud and ensure program integrity; enforcing uniform immigration rules is a compelling interest | Court: Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success; defendants failed to show least-restrictive means |
| Irreparable harm and balance of harms | Loss of ability to perform religious duties, inability to travel, and risk of bar to reentry are irreparable harms favoring injunction | Harm to government is limited to adjudicating two petitions; public interest in uniform immigration enforcement | Court: Irreparable harm established; balance favors Plaintiffs and injunction is not adverse to public interest |
| Whether a mandatory, disfavored injunction is appropriate | Necessity to prevent imminent, significant RFRA injury warrants mandatory relief (reconsideration without applying the challenged regulations) | Mandatory injunctions are disfavored; Plaintiff's requested relief may be beyond what court can compel under APA | Court: Heightened standard met; granted in part — ordered reconsideration/adjudication without applying specified regulations but did not direct a specific outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA preliminary-injunction standards and prima facie burden to show substantial burden on sincere religious exercise)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA applies to closely held corporations; analysis of compelling interest and least-restrictive-means)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004) (disfavored preliminary injunctions and heightened showing required)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework referenced in APA/agency review discussion)