S.A. v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1048

Background

The Central American Minors (CAM) Program (launched Dec. 2014) provided in‑country refugee processing and, for those not eligible as refugees, automatic consideration for parole into the U.S. under DHS/USCIS procedures.
From 2014–2016 the program interviewed ~5,500 beneficiaries and approved ~99% for refugee admission or parole; over 1,300 arrived as refugees or parolees and ~2,700 had conditional parole approvals but had not yet traveled by Jan–Aug 2017.
After President Trump’s Jan 2017 Executive Order restricting parole use, DHS (per the Kelly memorandum) reviewed parole policy, ceased CAM processing early 2017, and on Aug. 16, 2017 published a Federal Register notice terminating the CAM Parole Program and rescinding conditional parole approvals for beneficiaries who had not yet traveled.
Plaintiffs (U.S.‑resident parents, their beneficiary relatives abroad, and CASA) sued claiming: APA violations (arbitrary and capricious termination and rescission), Due Process, Equal Protection (discriminatory animus), and equitable estoppel (alleged ‘‘secret shutdown’’ and misleading communications).
The court treated two agency actions separately: (1) prospective termination of the program going forward, and (2) the mass rescission of conditional parole approvals previously issued.
Ruling: the court dismissed all claims except it denied dismissal of the APA claim challenging DHS’s mass rescission of conditional parole approvals (holding that mass rescission was arbitrary and capricious for inadequate consideration of serious reliance interests).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of CAM going forward violated the APA as arbitrary/capricious	DHS failed to give a satisfactory reason, ignored reliance and country conditions	DHS acted pursuant to new policy (EO 13767, Kelly Memo) and reasonably concluded CAM granted parole too broadly	Denied — termination going forward was supported by a rational connection to legitimate policy reasons and not arbitrary/capricious
Whether DHS violated APA by not explaining reasons in Federal Register or via notice‑and‑comment	Federal Register notice lacked full rationale and DHS should have provided broader public explanation	APA review uses the whole administrative record; termination was not a rule requiring notice‑and‑comment	Denied — review of the whole record supplies sufficient rationale; notice‑and‑comment not required for termination here
Whether DHS unlawfully rescinded conditional parole approvals (failure to consider serious reliance interests)	Conditioned beneficiaries relied on approvals (medical, travel, costs); DHS failed to account for serious reliance when mass‑rescinding	Approvals were conditional and discretionary; DHS offered refunds and preserved arrivals already in U.S.	Granted — plaintiffs plausibly allege serious reliance by conditionally approved beneficiaries; mass rescission was arbitrary and capricious for failing to address those reliance interests
Whether equal protection and due process claims survive (animus based on President's statements)	Termination motivated substantially by anti‑Latino animus; plaintiffs deprived of family‑companionship liberty interest without due process	Admission/exclusion of foreign nationals is political branch prerogative; government offered facially legitimate, bona fide reasons; no protected liberty interest in admission/parole	Dismissed — Due Process: no cognizable liberty interest in admission of relatives outside U.S.; Equal Protection: review circumscribed for admission decisions and DHS gave facially legitimate bona fide reasons (Trump v. Hawaii framework)

Key Cases Cited

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (standard for arbitrary and capricious review requires agency reasoned explanation)
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (circumscribed judicial review of admission/exclusion decisions; accept facially legitimate, bona fide reasons)
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018) (DACA rescission principles; agency must acknowledge and explain policy changes)
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016) (agency must consider serious reliance interests when changing longstanding policies)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (courts defer when Executive acts on admission with a facially legitimate and bona fide reason)
Mason v. Brooks, 862 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1988) (legislative history supports narrow, infrequent use of parole)
Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2004) (no protected liberty interest in discretionary temporary parole)
Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007) (arbitrary and capricious review is deferential but requires reasoned decisionmaking)