MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pеnding before the Court is a motion for reconsideration by the plaintiffs, Hispanic Affairs Project (“HAP”), and several individual herders, including Rodolfo Llacua, John Doe, Rafael De La Cruz, and Alfredo Salcedo, see generally Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of Order on Motions tо Dismiss (“Pis.’ Mot. Reconsideration”), EOF No. 84, which the defendants, the United States Secretary of Labor, the Department of Labor (“DOL”), DOL’s Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, the United States Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”),
I. BACKGROUND
The factual background underlying this case has previously been explained in detail, see Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez,
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) establishes a temporary work visa program for nonimmigrant aliens “having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform agricultural labor or services.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a). Under the INA, the Secretary of Labor may certify, or approve, temporary work visas, called H-2A visas, when, inter alia, (1) “there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing and qualified, and who will be available at thе time and place needed, to perform the labor or services involved in the petition,” and (2) “the employment of the alien in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.” Id. § 1188(a)(1)(A). Upon review of DOL’s findings, DHS issues the visas. Id. § 1184(c)(1).
To satisfy the statutory mandate that H-2A workers not “adversely affect the wages and working conditions” of domestic workers, DOL has adopted regulations setting minimum wages and working conditions that “employers must offer workers.” Mendoza,
The Court previously held, in addressing the government defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, that HAP lacks standing to challenge the 2015 Rule because none of its members falls within the zone of interests of § 1188(a)(1), which, as noted, is the provision of the INA under which the 2015 Rule was promulgated. See Hispanic Affairs Project,
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “any order or other decision ... that adjudicates fewer than all the claims ... may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” In contrast to a motion for reсonsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), which governs post-judgment motions for reconsideration, “Rule 54(b)’s approach to the interlocutory presentation of new arguments as the ease evolves can be more flexible, reflecting the ‘inherent power of the rendering district court to afford such relief from interlocutory judgments as justice requires.’ ” Cobell v. Jewell,
“The ‘as justice requires’ standard may be met, for example, where the court has patently misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties, erred not in reasoning but in apprehension of the relevant issues, or failed to consider a significant change in the law or facts since its decision.” Liff v. Office of the Inspector Gen. for the U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 14-cv-1162,
III. DISCUSSION
The parties’ arguments are set out before explaining why the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is granted.
A. The Parties’ Arguments
The plaintiffs’ pending motion requests that the Court “clarify or reconsider” its conclusion that, as non-citizens, HAP’s members—and, by extension, HAP—fall outside § 1188(a)(l)’s zone of interests and therefore lack standing to challenge the 2015 Rule. While acknowledging the “eorrect[ ] con-clu[ison]” that “American workers” come within § 1188(a)(1)’s zone of interests, the plaintiffs contend that the Court incorrectly indicated that “American workers,” as used in Mendoza, referred only to American citizens, and not, for example, to lawful permanent residents. Pis,’ Mot. Reconsideration at 2-3 (“T[he Court’s] conclusion ignores that one need not be an American citizen to be an American worker.” (emphasis in original)). The plaintiffs note that the Mendoza Court relied on the definition of “U.S. worker” supplied in 20 C.F.R. § 655.103(b), which expressly includes lawful permanent residents, Pis.’ Mot. Reconsideration at 3, and, “[although their immigration status was not mentioned by the D.C. Circuit, declarations submitted by all the Mendoza [plaintiffs] indicate they were lawful permanent residents,” id. at 3 n.2.
The defendants oppose this motion, principally, because they claim to be prejudiced by reconsideration of the plaintiffs’ late-breaking argument and accompanying declarations. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 2-4. In particular, the defendants argue that “[b]ased on [the plaintiffs’] prior representations, the [defendants] argued that ‘American workers—like Llaсua—who can demonstrate informal participation in the herding market ‘fall within the class of individuals whom the INA seeks to protect....’” Id. at 3 (quoting Defs.’ Mem. Support Mot. Dismiss Pis.’ Am. Comph, EOF No. 64-1 (emphasis added)); accord id. at 2 (explaining that “this litigation began in August, 2015 and has been subject to three different operative Complaints” and that the plaintiffs “have not once submitted
In light of the defendants’ assertion of prejudice and possible arguments they might have made, the Court afforded the defendants an oрportunity to “provide ... an explanation of any additional arguments the defendants might have raised as to whether HAP comes within 8 U.S.C. § 1188(a)(1)’s zone of interests.” Minute Order (dated Nov. 10, 2016). The defendants responded, stating that they “do[ ] not have any additional arguments concerning whether HAP is -within 8 U.S.C. § 1188(a)(1)’s zоne of interests.” Gov’t Defs.’ Resp. Court Order Dated Nov. 10, 2016 (“Defs.’ Resp. Court Order”) at 2, ECF No. 88,
B. Some HAP Members are “American Workers”
The plaintiffs contend that the suggestion in the challenged Memorandum Opinion that all non-citizens fall outside § 1188(a)(1)’s zone of interests is imprecise and an overreading of Mendoza. The Court agrees. In Mendoza, the D.C. Circuit explained that “the clear intent of [§ 1181(a)(1) ] is to protect American workers from the deleterious effects the employment of foreign labor might have on domestic wages and working conditions.” Mendoza,
Here, HAP has at least two members who are lawful permanent residents of the United States. Although this fact was not brought to the Court’s attention until the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, see Pis.’ Mot. Reconsideration at 4 (acknowledging that the plaintiffs may have caused “confusion” by “not provid[ing] details about the HAP members’ precise immigration status” earlier in the litigation), it is now сlear that these members, as lawful permanent residents, fall within § 1188(a)(1)’s zone of interests.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of Order on Motions to Dismiss is granted. Accordingly, HAP has established, through its members, that it falls within the zone of interests of 8 U.S.C. § 1188(a)(1), and that it may challenge the 2016 Rule along with Rodolfo Llacua. An order consistent with this opinion will be contemporaneously entered.
Notes
. The Court granted a motion to transfer venue, pursuаnt to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, fay the Western Range Association and the Mountain Plains Agricultural Service. See Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez, No. 15-cv-01562,
. The plaintiffs argue, in the alternative, that the defendants "have conceded that HAP members are American workers and have forfeited any argument to the contrary.” Id. at 4. This contention plаces too much weight on the defendants' failure to dispute the plaintiffs’ cursory references to various HAP members as "American shepherds” and as being legally authorized to work in the United States.
. The plaintiffs note that "[t]he Government does not dispute that Mendoza dictates that legal permanent residents have standing to challenge the 2015 Rule.” Pis.' Reply Supp. Mot. Clarification or Reconsideration at 1, ECF No. 86.
. Instead, the defendants argue that "reconsideration should not be granted absent an express finding 'that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’ " Id. (quoting Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. CIA, Nos. 11-443,
. As the plaintiffs indicate, this dicta in the background section of Mendoza arguably could be read to suggest that H-2A workers qualify as “American workers” within the meaning of the statute. The Court need not reconsider this question, however, as the plaintiffs expressly state that they do not challenge that aspect of the Court's previous opinion. See Pis.’ Mot. Reconsideration at 3 n.l (“[The] [p]laintiffs do not press this separate issue in this motion.").
. As noted, the defendants contend that this revelation cаme too late and should not be considered by the Court. See Defs.’ Opp'n at 2 (“That late-breaking allegation does not provide any basis to reconsider the Court's prior ruling.”). The defendants, however, have been unable to identify any prejudice they suffer as a result of the belаted submission of the affidavits. Indeed, as the defendants themselves point out, the Court's Order ruling on the defendants’ motion to dis