Shia Ass'n v. United States
849 F. Supp. 2d 916
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are SABA, its Imam Mir, Mir’s wife Zahera, and their five sons; Mir served as SABA’s minister since 2002 and sought permanent residence since 2005.
- DHS denied and delayed Mir and family’s petitions for a special immigrant religious worker visa and for adjustment of status; amendments in 2008 affected eligibility standards.
- Mir and Zahera traveled to India in 2010; after Mir’s travel, DHS revoked their travel documents, leading to removal proceedings upon return.
- In 2011, Plaintiffs filed suit alleging constitutional and statutory violations, including due process, regulatory misapplication, and ultra vires actions.
- Court holds that the 2008 amendments to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m) are ultra vires and grants judgment for Plaintiffs, with restoration of status and guidance for return of Mir and Zahera.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2008 amendments to 8 C.F.R. §204.5(m)(4), (11) | Amendments exceed statutory authority (ultra vires). | Regulations are a reasonable interpretation entitled to Chevron deference. | Amendments ultra vires; not enforceable. |
| Due process rights in revocation of advance parole and return | Revocation and parole denial violated due process and restoration rights. | Notice provided; parole effects did not prejudice status. | Due process violated; restore status and permit renewal/return. |
| Retroactivity of the 2008 amendments to Plaintiffs’ petition | Amendments applied retroactively to pending petitions. | Regulations apply to pending cases; preamble indicates adjudication under new standards. | Issue moot/undeveloped due to ultra vires; regulation invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-step framework for agency deference)
- Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 618 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2010) (treats regulation as reasonable construction of INA)
- Samirah v. Holder, 627 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2010) (advance parole revocation requires restoration of status; right to reentry)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (courts must not rely on implausible versions of fact for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on moving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (preponderance standard; evidence must create genuine dispute)