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 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., June 30, 2020)

The Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition is proud to have successfully defeated President Trump’s second asylum ban - a rule seeking to bar asylum for individuals who entered or attempted 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, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), and Human Rights First and led by Hogan Lovells.

Press Release on Decision (click here)

Decision Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (click here)

Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Vacating the Interim Final Rule (click here)

Complaint (click here)

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

Initial Press Release (click here)

Challenging Lack of Fair Bond Hearings for Immigrants Detained in Maryland 

Dubon Miranda et al. v. Barr et al., No. 20-1110 (D.Md., filed Apr. 30, 2020)

CAIR Coalition, the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, the ACLU of Maryland, and Sanford Heisler Sharp LLC filed a class action that seeks to establish certain basic procedures during immigration bond hearings in Maryland: namely, (1) a requirement that the government bear the burden of proving that the individual is a flight risk and danger that justifies their detention (rather than the burden being on the respondent to prove a negative as it is currently) and (2) a requirement that immigration judges consider immigrants’ ability to pay in setting bond amounts and their eligibility for release on alternative conditions of supervision. 

On May 29, 2020, District Judge Catherine C. Blake granted a class-wide Preliminary Injunction, ordering that at the bond hearings for immigrants who are detained and eligible for bond hearings, the government must bear the burden of justifying continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, and the immigration judge must consider the noncitizen's ability to pay a set bond amount and suitability for release on alternative conditions. 

Decision Granting a Preliminary Injunction (Click here)

Complaint (Click here)

Press release (Click here)

Fighting for the Release of Detained Immigrants at Risk of Serious Illness and Death from COVID-19 Due to Medical Conditions and Age in Maryland and Virginia

Toure et al. v. Hott et al. (EDVA., filed Apr. 9, 2020)

CAIR Coalition, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers' Guild, and the Legal Aid Justice Center filed a lawsuit against ICE demanding the release of immigrants who are detained in Virginia and have medical conditions that make them at serious risk of illness or death due to COVID-19. On April 29, 2020, Judge O'Grady of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction. This decision is currently pending on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 

Complaint (Click here)

Press release (Click here)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Click here)

Coreas et al. v. Bounds et al. (D.Md., filed Mar. 24, 2020)

CAIR Coalition, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers' Guild, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Maryland filed a lawsuit against ICE demanding the release of immigrants who are detained in Maryland and have medical conditions that make them at serious risk of illness or death due to COVID-19. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiffs' Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction for all Plaintiffs in two different immigration detention centers.

To access the court’s decision granting a preliminary injunction for the Petitioners at the Worcester County Detention Center, click here.

To access the court’s decision granting a preliminary injunction for the Petitioner at the Howard County Detention Center, click here.

Complaint (Click here)

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Click here)

Press release (Click here)

Expert declaration (Click here)

Defending Children Asylum-Seekers Facing Unlawful Deportation and Detention Due to the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)

A.C.H.C. et al. v. Barr  et al. (D.D.C., filed Mar. 17, 2020)

CAIR Coalition, Justice Action Center, and O'Melveny filed a lawsuit on behalf of three young siblings who are facing imminent, unlawful removal and detention as a result of removal orders under MPP, despite their right to have hearings in immigration court and reunite with their father/stepfather during the process. MPP is a policy the government recently adopted that forces asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while pursuing their asylum claims in immigration court. The lawsuit seeks to reunite the children with their father/stepfather during their immigration court process, hault the children's deportations, and allow for them to have a hearing in immigration court on their individual asylum and other claims.

Amended Complaint (Click here)

Original Complaint (Click here)

Press Release (Click here)

AP News Story (Click here)

New York Times Story (Click here)

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

O.A. and S.M.S.R. v. Trump, 404 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019) 

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 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)