CAIR Coalition's Immigration Impact Lab is currently litigating several pending matters, along with our pro bono partners, including:

Asylum Litigation - Challenging the Administration's (Asylum Ban I)

O.A. et al. v. Trump, No. 18-2718; S.M.S.R. et al. v. Trump, No. 18-2838 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 3, 2018)

Hogan Lovells, CAIR Coalition, and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Inc. (RAICES) filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s Proclamation seeking to bar asylum for all migrants arriving at the southern border through Mexico other than at a port of entry, S.M.S.R. et al. v. Trump.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of individual plaintiffs, CAIR Coalition, and RAICES.  With individual plaintiffs impacted by the rule and novel statutory and due process claims, including a child plaintiff and a claim related to children asylum-seekers, this lawsuit builds on other litigations challenging the government’s new asylum rules. 

This case was joined with a similar case brought by Human Rights First (HRF), National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), and Williams & Connolly, O.A. et al. v. Trump.

On August 2, 2019, Judge Moss granted in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Class Certification, holding that the Administration’s asylum ban violated the plain text of the immigration laws and that Trump Administration cannot bar refugees from asylum for crossing between ports of entry. 

Decision granting Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Class Certification (Click here)

Press Release on Court's Decision (Click here)

Amended Complaint (Click here)

Press Release on Filing of the Lawsuit (Click here)

Asylum Litigation - Challenging the Administration's Rule Barring Asylum Eligibility for Asylum-Seekers Who Travel Through a Third Country (Asylum Ban II)

CAIR Coalition et al. v. TrumpNo. 19-2117 (D.D.C., filed July 16, 2019)

The Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition is proud to be a plaintiff and co-counsel in a new lawsuit challenging President Trump’s rule barring asylum for individuals who enter or attempt to enter across the southern border, if they did not seek protection from a third country while en route to the United States. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of CAIR Coalition and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES).  

Complaint (click here)

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (click here)

Press Release (click here)

Crim-Imm Litigation - Amicus Brief Filed at the Supreme Court 

Barton v. Barr (4th. Cir., filed Jul. 3, 2019)

CAIR Coalition and Morgan Lewis LLP filed an amicus brief to support the petitioner in arguing that the grounds of inadmissibility should not apply to bar a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) or "green-card holder" from a common defense to deportation called cancellation of removal for certain lawful permanent residents in terms of the "stop-time rule." CAIR Coalition's amicus brief highlights the stories of individuals and families impacted by this legal issue. 

Supreme Court Amicus Brief (Click here)

Asylum Litigation - Challenging Matter of A-B-

N.H. v. Barr (4th. Cir., filed Oct. 19, 2018)

CAIR Coalition and Mayer Brown LLP have filed an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging the application of Matter of A‑B‑, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), on behalf of a woman who has suffered and fears continued gender-based persecution.

In Matter of A-B-, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned the seminal case establishing legal protection for some women fleeing domestic violence, Matter of A‑R‑C‑G‑, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), and attempted to cut off asylum protection for women fleeing domestic violence and Central Americans fleeing violence generally.

Our client N.H. is a survivor of severe domestic violence, which she fled in Honduras to seek protection in the United States. N.H. was denied asylum by the same immigration judge who issued the underlying decision in Matter of A-B- before Matter of A-B- was issued. After N.H. appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Attorney General issued Matter of A-B-. In part relying on Matter of A-B-, the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s decision to deny N.H. asylum.  

Eight groups joined us and provided amicus briefs in support of N.H., including 27 retired immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals members, 105 immigration and refugee law professors, Tahirih Justice Center, Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, ASISTA, Ayuda, the National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project (NIWAP), and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

Fourth Circuit Opening Brief (Click here)

Class Action Litigation - Challenging ICE's Prolonged Detention of Noncitizens who Win Withholding of Removal 

Sanchez-Acosta v. Barr, No. 18-7465 (4th Cir., filed Nov. 29, 2018)

CAIR Coalition, Legal Aid Justice Center, and Muslim Advocates filed a class-action lawsuit to challenge a new and fundamentally unfair policy that keeps immigrants detained after they win their cases, violating the basic tenets of due process.

Previously, when detained immigrants won their cases seeking withholding of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would generally release them right away, barring some specific reason otherwise.  Now, ICE’s new policy is to hold all such immigrants behind bars and keep them apart from their families for an additional 90 days, for no good reason. Withholding of removal, similar to asylum, is a protection granted by an immigration judge to people who have successfully proven they will be persecuted or killed if returned to their home country.

Case developments:

Complaint (Click Here for a Full Copy)

Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Click Here for a Full Copy)

Press Release (Click Here)

Class Action Litigation - Due Process for Detained Immigrants Seeking Bond

Palacios v. Barr, No. 18-7408 (4th Cir., filed Nov. 16, 2018)

CAIR Coalition, the American Immigration Council, and Cauley Forsythe Law Group filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina challenging the practice of three Immigration Judges in the Charlotte Immigration Court who illegally refuse to conduct bond hearings for detained immigrants, as well as the failure of the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review to take corrective action. The Charlotte immigration judges' refusal to conduct bond hearings—even though they are required to do so—unconstitutionally prolongs the detention of bond-eligible individuals for several weeks.

The suit challenges this unlawful, alarming, and unconscionable practice that deprives immigrants of their basic due process rights. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of individuals in immigration custody in North Carolina or South Carolina who properly file or will file requests for bond hearings with the Charlotte Immigration Court, and have been or will be deprived of consideration of the bond motion in Charlotte.

Case developments:

Complaint (Click Here for a Full Copy)

Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Click Here for a Full Copy)

Press Release (Click Here)