Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Amnestyadvisory

Amnestyadvisory

Amnestyadvisory

Page 1: Amnestyadvisory

Category:

Number of Pages:5

Date Created:March 4, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:March 04, 2015

Tags:Amnestyadvisory, guidelines, guidance, Injunction, uscis, action, Assistant, Deferred, Advisory, defendants, Attorney, order, filed, document, states, court, united


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 176 Filed TXSD 03/03/15 Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
__________________________________________
STATE TEXAS, al.
Plaintiffs,
No. 1:14-cv-254
UNITED STATES AMERICA, al.
Defendants.
__________________________________________)
DEFENDANTS ADVISORY
Defendants file this Advisory inform the Court certain actions that U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services USCIS took pursuant the November 20, 2014 deferred action
memorandum issue this case before the Court issued its preliminary injunction February
16, 2015. Defendants not believe that the preliminary injunction requires them take any
affirmative steps concerning those pre-injunction actions, but Defendants nevertheless wish
ensure that the Court fully aware those actions. February 16, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and enjoined Defendants from implementing any and all aspects phases Deferred Action
for Parents Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents DAPA Order Temporary Inj. Order [ECF No. 144]. The Court also enjoined any and all aspects phases the
expansions (including any and all changes) Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals modified DACA set forth the memorandum issued the Secretary Homeland
Security November 20, 2014 Deferred Action Guidance Id.
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 176 Filed TXSD 03/03/15 Page
The changes DACA set forth the Deferred Action Guidance and referenced the
Court Order included two separate expansions the substantive eligibility guidelines for
DACA: first, removal the existing age cap 31; and second, adjustment the relevant date which individual must have been the United States from June 15, 2007, January
2010. See Deferred Action Guidance [ECF No. 38-7]. The third change involved adjusting
the period deferred action under DACA from two three years. Id. the terms the
Guidance, this last change applied not only individuals eligible for DACA under the newly
expanded guidelines, but also (as November 24, 2014) individuals already eligible for
DACA under the original 2012 guidelines. Id. Plaintiffs not challenge, and the Court did not
enjoin, the original DACA guidelines issued June 15, 2012. See Mem. Op. Order Op. [ECF No. 145]. response the Court Order February 16, 2015, Defendants immediately took
steps cease implementation DAPA and modified DACA, and believe they have done so.
Defendants have not begun accepting considering any requests for deferred action under the
substantive eligibility guidelines set forth the Guidance, including the expanded guidelines for
modified DACA (i.e., removal the age cap and the adjustment the date which
individual must have been the United States) consideration that was otherwise begin
February 18, 2015. USCIS also immediately ceased providing three-year grants deferred
action, well three-year Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), individuals
whose requests were approved under the original 2012 DACA guidelines.
For any requests for deferred action submitted under the original 2012 DACA guidelines that have been will approved following issuance the preliminary injunction but for which EADs have not yet
issued, USCIS will issue periods deferred action and EADs only for the two-year period set forth the
original 2012 DACA guidelines.
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 176 Filed TXSD 03/03/15 Page
Out abundance caution, however, Defendants wish bring one issue the
Court attention. Specifically, between November 24, 2014 and the issuance the Court
Order, USCIS granted three-year periods deferred action approximately 100,000
individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 DACA guidelines (and
were otherwise determined warrant such relief), including the issuance three-year EADs for
those 2012 DACA recipients who were eligible for renewal. These pre-injunction grants
three-year periods deferred action those already eligible for 2012 DACA were consistent
with the terms the November Guidance. Deferred Action Guidance see also Neufeld
Decl. n.6 Pursuant the November 20, 2014 memo issued Secretary Johnson,
November 24, 2014, all first-time DACA requests and requests for renewal now receive threeyear period deferred action. [ECF No. 130-11]. Defendants nevertheless recognize that their
identification February 18, 2015, the date which USCIS planned accept requests for
deferred action under the new and expanded DACA eligibility guidelines, and their identification March 2015, the earliest date which USCIS would make final decisions such
expanded DACA requests, may have led confusion about when USCIS had begun providing
three-year terms deferred action individuals already eligible for deferred action under 2012
DACA. See, e.g., Defs. Mot. for Extension Time File Resp. Pls. Prelim. Inj. Reply
Mem. light these circumstances, Defendants file this Advisory ensure that the Court
aware these pre-injunction actions taken USCIS. Defendants understanding that the
preliminary injunction does not require them take affirmative steps alter the status quo
existed before the Court Order. Accord Op. 119. For this reason, Defendants not
understand the Order require Defendants take affirmative steps revoke three-year periods
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 176 Filed TXSD 03/03/15 Page deferred action and work authorization (and accompanying documents, including EADs) that
were issued for recipients deferred action under the original 2012 DACA eligibility guidelines
prior the Court February 16, 2015 Order. Defendants nevertheless provide this Advisory
ensure that the Court fully aware Defendants pre-injunction actions, light any
potential confusion from the intersection the enjoined Deferred Action Guidance, the 2012
DACA guidelines that remain place, and Defendants statements about when grants DACA
under the revised eligibility guidelines would begin taking place.
Dated: March 2015
Respectfully submitted,
KENNETH MAGIDSON
United States Attorney
BENJAMIN MIZER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
DANIEL DAVID
Assistant United States Attorney
Deputy Chief, Civil Division
KATHLEEN HARTNETT
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
DIANE KELLEHER
Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Kyle Freeny
KYLE FREENY (Cal. Bar No. 247857)
Attorney-in-Charge
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department Justice
P.O. Box 883, Washington, D.C. 20044
Tel.: (202) 514-5108 Fax: (202) 616-8470
Kyle.Freeny@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
Notably, the fact that pre-injunction grants deferred action were issued for increments three, rather
than two, years does not have any present impact the recipients ability remain the country and
work; successive two-year renewals for those eligible for 2012 DACA are authorized the 2012 DACA
guidelines not challenged this litigation.
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 176 Filed TXSD 03/03/15 Page
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that true and correct copy the foregoing Advisory has been delivered
electronically March 2015, counsel record via the District ECF system.
/s/ Kyle Freeny
Counsel for Defendants