683 F.Supp.3d 799
N.D. Ill.2023Background
- Plaintiffs are tax-exempt religious organizations that employ foreign-born ministers and sought to use the EB-4 (special immigrant religious worker) process to adjust status for R-1 visa holders.
- USCIS regulation 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) bars concurrent filing of Form I-485 (adjustment of status) with Form I-360 for EB-4 petitioners, whereas EB-1/EB-2/EB-3 petitioners may file concurrently.
- Plaintiffs allege the non-concurrent rule causes delays, resource costs, lapses in employment authorization, and disruption of religious services; they challenged the rule under the First Amendment, RFRA, INA, and Equal Protection/Due Process (APA claim was earlier dismissed as time-barred).
- The court previously found plaintiffs had standing for threatened future harm but dismissed their APA/INA challenge as barred by the six-year statute of limitations for actions challenging rule promulgation.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court (1) found plaintiffs have Article III standing, (2) held the INA/APA challenge time-barred, but (3) reached the merits on RFRA and constitutional claims and granted defendants summary judgment on all remaining counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Plaintiffs will suffer imminent, redressable harm from non-concurrent filing (delays, disruptions) when they next file I-360s for R-1 employees. | Alleged harms are speculative and depend on a chain of future events (future filings, adjudication timing). | Plaintiffs have standing based on plausible threatened disparate treatment; affidavits suffice. |
| Timeliness / Statute of Limitations (INA / APA) | Challenge to §245.2 is ongoing and applied to plaintiffs; limitations should not bar review of application/enforcement. | Rule was promulgated in 2002; APA/INA challenge accrued then and is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). | INA/APA challenge is time-barred; summary judgment for defendants on Count 4. |
| RFRA — Substantial Burden | Non-concurrent filing substantially burdens religious exercise by forcing staffing timing, causing lapses, and disrupting missions. | The rule only affects timing/costs; it does not coerce changes in religious practice or force choice between faith and benefit; alternative categories exist. | No substantial burden: the rule regulates filing timing and planning but does not coerce religious practice; summary judgment for defendants on RFRA. |
| Equal Protection / Due Process | The rule discriminates against religious employers by treating EB-4 petitioners differently. | The rule targets fraud risk in the religious worker program, is neutral as to religion, and survives rational-basis review in immigration context. | Rule is rationally related to fraud prevention; not religion-based discrimination; summary judgment for defendants on equal protection/due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires imminent, concrete, redressable injury)
- Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 703 F.3d 483 (9th Cir.) (agency’s concurrent-filing prohibition does not impose RFRA substantial burden on religious workers)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (definition of substantial burden on religious exercise)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (RFRA/substantial-burden analysis and exemptions)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (RFRA exemption standard)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (ministerial-exception principles distinguishing government intrusion on internal church decisions)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (broad judicial deference to immigration classifications)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (immigration decisions receive limited judicial review)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (administrative deference framework cited but not resolved)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (RFRA protects religious exercise beyond First Amendment baseline)