Author Archives: American Immigration Council

National Immigration Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

National Immigration Project, et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00641 (D.D.C. filed March 6, 2024)

Following media reports that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Del Rio, Texas are disproportionately targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries for prosecution, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking data regarding the individuals prosecuted for certain offenses in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Del Rio).

In August 2023, The L.A. Times first reported that federal prosecutors in Del Rio, Texas were charging people from Muslim-majority countries with illegal entry (8 U.S.C § 1325), illegal reentry (8 U.S.C § 1326), and the obscure offense of failing to properly report at entry (19 U.S.C. § 1459) at high rates, even though they make up a very small percentage of the people crossing the U.S.-Texas border.

On January 5, 2024, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates submitted their FOIA request to the Department of Justice and CBP – the agency generally responsible for referring people apprehended at the border for federal prosecution. The request seeks three categories of records: (1) records of the number of people prosecuted in Del Rio for the three relevant offenses, including their national origin; (2) records regarding the number of referrals made by CBP to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Del Rio for the relevant offenses, including national origin information; and (3) records showing the number of arrests by the Del Rio Sector of CBP, including national origin information.

When CBP and the Department of Justice failed to respond within the 30-day deadline set by FOIA, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates filed suit on March 6, 2024, seeking to compel production of responsive records.

Documents:

Counsel: National Immigration Project; Muslim Advocates

Contact: Khaled Alrabe | National Immigration Project | khaled@nipnlg.org

East Bay Sanctuary, et al., v. Biden, et al.

Posted on by

East Bay Sanctuary, et al., v. Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al., No. 4:18-cv-06810 (N.D. Cal., amended complaint filed May 11, 2023) and No. 23-16032 (9th Cir., filed July 26, 2023)

Anticipating the end of the policy that allowed for the expulsion of asylum-seekers arriving at the U.S./Mexico border under Title 42, on May 10, 2023, the Biden administration issued a new final rule that bars certain asylum seekers from asylum if they did not apply for asylum in a country they passed through on their way to the United States or failed to obtain advance permission to arrive at a port of entry or travel to the United States. The exceptions to this new asylum ban are extremely narrow. This is the third in a string of asylum bans attempting to bar many people from the asylum process. The first two originated under the Trump administration and were found unlawful by the district court in this case and the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit on November 9, 2018, in response to the Trump administration’s first asylum ban, which barred anyone who did not enter the United States at a port of entry from receiving asylum. The district court found this first ban unlawful and enjoined it. The Ninth Circuit affirmed those orders on February 28, 2020, (and in an amended opinion on March 24, 2021). The case was stayed.

On July 16, 2019, East Bay Sanctuary and others filed a related lawsuit in the same court challenging the second asylum ban, which barred those who did not apply for asylum in a country they transited through on their way to the United States from seeking asylum in the United States. The district court similarly preliminarily enjoined the second asylum rule as likely unlawful and the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed that order on July 6, 2020, (amended April 8, 2021).

On May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint in this case to challenge the third asylum ban. Defendants consented to the filing of the amended complaint and to lifting the stay on the case. Plaintiffs argue that the new rule is unlawful for the same reasons the first two asylum bans were unlawful. It will effectively eliminate asylum for nearly all non-Mexican asylum seekers who enter between designated ports of entry, and even for those who present at a port of entry if they have not first secured an appointment.

On July 25, 2023, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ cross-motion, vacating the rule yet again. The government appealed the order, and on August 3, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the administration’s transit ban can continue through September, staying the lower court decision. On February 21, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted a motion filed by the parties to hold the case in abeyance pending settlement negotiations in this case and a related case, M.A. v. Mayorkas, No. 1:23-cv-1843 (D.D.C.). On October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the states of Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and West Virginia, challenging the Ninth Circuit’s order granting the hold.

On February 5, 2025, the parties notified the Ninth Circuit that settlement discussions were not successful. On April 10, 2025, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the district court’s summary judgment order and remanding to the district court to address the Supreme Court’s opinion in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024) and the impact of Executive Order 14165, which eliminated several of the “lawful pathways” on which the rule relied.

On May 7, 2026, the district court reaffirmed his original summary judgment order. The court concluded that Alliance did not undermine plaintiffs’ standing and the Executive Order further underscored the rule’s unlawfulness.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Immigrant Rights Project | Center for Gender & Refugee Studies | National Immigrant Justice Center | ACLU of Northern California

Contact: Katrina Eiland | ACLU Immigrant Rights Project | keiland@aclu.org

Press:

American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Posted on by

American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:23-cv-01395 (D.D.C., filed May 17, 2023)

On December 20, 2018, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, announced a new government policy, the so-called “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), which would force noncitizens seeking admission from Mexico to return to Mexico to await their removal proceedings. The Trump administration voiced its intention to implement the policy “on a large scale basis,” beginning first with San Ysidro Port of Entry in California on January 28, 2019. MPP sparked litigation and in 2021, the Biden administration terminated the program. More information about MPP and related litigation is available here.

On May 17, 2023, American Oversight filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking to compel the release of communications from Trump administration political appointees to anti-immigrant groups concerning MPP. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on July 26, 2023. As of June 2024, the parties continue to file joint status reports with the court while production is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: American Oversight

Contact: Hart W. Wood | American Oversight | hart.wood@americanoversight.org

Civil Rights Complaints Regarding CBP’s Expanded Use of Open-Air Detention

Posted on by

On May 13, 2023, the Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC) submitted a complaint to the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). The complaint, which is supported by multiple detailed affidavits and graphic photographs, documents an ongoing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) practice of detaining people outdoors between two fences in deplorable conditions near the San Ysidro port of entry.

Since at least late 2022, U.S. Border Patrol agents have been detaining people arriving at the U.S./Mexico border in California between two parallel border walls—a primary and a secondary wall near San Ysidro. Border Patrol agents are holding people—including children—on U.S. soil for days or weeks in open-air custody without adequate food, water, shelter, or medical care. CBP has provided only one port-a-potty for hundreds of people and the smell of feces is overwhelming.

Extended periods exposed to the elements without sufficient water, food, or sanitary conditions have caused migrants to suffer from serious medical conditions for which Border Patrol is not providing adequate care. SBCC submitted images of a man with a severely infected leg injury, a woman experiencing a severe allergic reaction, and described a child who suffered an epileptic seizure.

The May 2023 complaint explained that these conditions, and the prolonged period of time that Border Patrol is holding people between the walls, are in clear violation of CBP’s own detention standards and international law governing the treatment of migrants.

In September 2023, CRCL responded to the complaint, indicating that it had expressed concerns to CBP about this open-air detention, but that the people detained there had been processed – suggesting the issue had been resolved.

On December 13, 2023, Al Otro Lado, the American Friends Service Committee, Border Kindness, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and the National Immigration Law Center joined SBCC in filing a new complaint with CRCL documenting the ongoing detention between the walls at San Ysidro and the expanded use of open-air detention near the remote desert town of Jacumba, California. This complaint is similarly supported by declarations and photographic evidence.

The December 2023 complaint reports that CBP continues to hold people between fences at San Ysidro in dangerous conditions. In October 2023, just weeks after CRCL closed its initial investigation, a 29-year-old Guinean woman died after suffering a medical emergency.

Rather than respond to CRCL’s concerns, CBP has expanded outdoor detention. The complaint documents new open-air detention sites near Jacumba — a remote town where temperatures can drop a low as 20 degrees in the winter and hit over 100 degrees in the summer. CBP is holding asylum seekers and other migrants along the border fence with only donated tents or tarps to protect them from the elements. People are trapped by mountains, the harsh surrounding desert, and constant surveillance. The daily population at these sites ranges from 100 to over 750, yet CBP provides only limited water and snacks. Volunteers offer the only meals, shelter (in the form of tents), and warm clothing available. CBP does not provide adequate medical care and in some instances interferes with migrants and volunteers seeking to obtain emergency services. In December, a 13-year-old boy died after EMS took over an hour to reach the remote site. The December 2023 complaint urges CRCL to reopen its investigation and ensure that CBP, at a minimum, comply with its own detention standards if it cannot promptly process people.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado, the American Friends Service Committee, Border Kindness, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the International Refugee Assistance Project, the National Immigration Law Center, Southern Border Communities Coalition

Contact: Erika Pinheiro | Al Otro Lado

Madrigales Vasquez, et al., v. United States of America

Posted on by

Madrigales Vasquez, et al., v. United States of America, No. 3:23-cv-5397, (W.D. Wash., filed May 2, 2023)

On February 21, 2021, a family of asylum seekers—two minor children and their parents—entered the United States seeking protection from persecution in Guatemala. After a long and arduous journey on foot and by bus, federal immigration officers arrested the family, dropped them off under an international border bridge near McAllen, Texas, and held the family there for three days, where hundreds of other migrants were similarly being held. 

The family expressed to officers their intention to apply for asylum right away, but officers ignored the family’s vulnerable situation and instead continued to detain them under the bridge in inhumane and unsafe conditions that violated their basic rights and sense of dignity as human beings. 

While held under the bridge, the family lacked adequate access to basic necessities, including food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. They were constantly exposed to the elements and forced to sleep on the bare ground, with hardly any protection from freezing night conditions. For three days, they constantly felt cold, sore, famished, and exhausted. When one of the parents became ill from the conditions, she was denied medical care. Moreover, officers put the family and other asylum seekers at risk of contracting COVID-19 during a time when the vast majority of the United States and world population remained unvaccinated. In the holding area under the bridge, asylum seekers had no access to running water or hygiene items like soap, and social distancing was impossible in the crowded conditions.

During their three days under the bridge, officers refused to provide the family with any explanation regarding their situation, why they were detained, or what was going to happen to them. As a direct result of this unlawful conduct, the family suffered severe physical, mental, and psychological harm. 

On June 21, 2022, the family submitted an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the government actors who detained them, and on May 2, 2023, they filed a complaint in federal court in the Western District of Washington, where they currently reside. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on August 7, 2023. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 22, 2023. On March 28, 2024, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, agreeing with the government’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the FTCA’s discretionary function exception (DFE), given that CBP made a policy decision to address the overburdened and under-resourced situation. The court therefore dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

Contact: Matt Adams | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org

Borowski v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Borowski v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-00257 (W.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 22, 2023)

Matthew Borowski is an immigration attorney and U.S. citizen who resides in Canada but manages an immigration law firm in Buffalo, New York. As such, he routinely commutes across the U.S./Canadian border for work. He has maintained a NEXUS card since 2012. NEXUS is a trusted traveler program that permits faster travel across the border.

Mr. Borowski and his family have had several encounters with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers while traveling across the border. In one incident, a CBP officer assaulted Mr. Borowski’s wife and took the families’ NEXUS cards. CBP ultimately returned the NEXUS cards. Mr. Borowski and his wife sued the assaulting CBP officer, who continued to harass the family while the lawsuit was pending. In 2017, Mr. Borowski successfully renewed his NEXUS card.

During the Trump administration, Mr. Borowski was outspoken about his opposition to new immigration policies and engaged in a range of activity to express his views, including a protest in immigration court. Mr. Borowksi continued to travel back and forth across the U.S./Canadian border, and though he was routinely sent to secondary inspection for no apparent reason, he was always permitted to continue his travel. In December 2022, CBP declined his request to renew his NEXUS card without explanation. A NEXUS Supervisor indicated to Mr. Borowski that prior incidents had led to the denial.

Mr. Borowski submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking the reason for the denial. CBP has yet to respond. On March 22, 2023, Mr. Borowski filed suit alleging that the denial of his request to renew his NEXUS card was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and challenging the failure to respond to his FOIA request. Defendant CBP filed a motion to dismiss, and Mr. Borowski filed an amended complaint on June 20, 2023. Defendant CBP filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2023, and plaintiff filed his response August 21, 2023.  Defendant submitted a motion for partial summary judgment on October 16, 2023, arguing that the court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claim that CBP improperly withheld responsive documents because information was properly withheld under the FOIA statute.

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part on February 21, 2024, dismissing Mr. Borowski’s FTCA and constitutional claims without prejudice but denying the motion to dismiss as to his APA claim. Defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint on March 5, 2024. On May 10, 2024, the court denied Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that CBP had not adequately addressed the deficiencies Plaintiff identified in its production, nor adequately justifying the information it had withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions. On July 9, 2024, Defendant CBP filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that it had run a new search for documents and all withheld documents were properly done so pursuant to FOIA’s exemptions.

On March 20, 2025, the court issued a decision on Borowski’s motion to expand the administrative record and compel CBP’s privilege log related to Plaintiff Borowski’s APA claims. The court also analyzed and ruled on Defendant CBP’s renewed motion for summary judgment. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion to expand the administrative record and upheld CBP’s redactions based on deliberative process, but required the agency to provide additional information regarding its claims of law enforcement privilege. The court concluded that the agency conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. CBP filed a motion for summary judgment in September 2025, and Borowski filed a response in opposition in October 2025. CBP then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and Borowski filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss in November 2025.

Documents:

Counsel: Matthew Borowski

Contact: Matthew Borowski | (716) 330-1503

Press:

Daniel Telvock, NEXUS pass dispute pits attorney vs. U.S. Customs, WIVB4, Aug. 3, 2023.

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, et al., v. DHS, et al., No. 1:23-cv-10479 (D. Mass, filed Mar. 2, 2023)

On December 14, 2021, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) and Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) submitted a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking information about how CBP adjudicates humanitarian parole requests. Immigration law authorizes CBP and other agencies to parole noncitizens into the United States for “humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” As the government sets up more obstacles to legal entry—such as the former bar on entry pursuant to Title 42 and other limits on processing asylum seekers at ports of entry—humanitarian parole is often the only vehicle to seek temporary protection in the United States.

CBP has provided little information about how it adjudicates these urgent requests. Since 2017, FIRRP has been providing legal services to asylum seekers in Nogales, Sonora, just across the border from the Nogales Port of Entry into Nogales, Arizona. For their most vulnerable clients, FIRRP submits humanitarian parole applications, but the overwhelming majority of these clients have received boilerplate denials or no response at all. FIRRP and LCR submitted a FOIA request seeking CBP’s policies and procedures for processing these requests and data regarding processing times and outcomes.

After CBP failed to provide any responsive records for over a year, on March 2, 2023, FIRRP and LCR filed a lawsuit under FOIA to compel CBP to respond. The parties jointly proposed a briefing schedule to permit the government to produce responsive records to plaintiffs’ FOIA request, with production to be completed by November 3, 2023. The parties jointly proposed a briefing schedule to permit the government to produce responsive records to plaintiffs’ FOIA request. On March 19, 2024, the court stayed the case while the parties continue to cooperatively attempt to satisfy the FOIA request.

Documents:

Counsel: Lawyers for Civil Rights | Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project

Contact: Marian Albert | Lawyers for Civil Rights | (617) 482-1145

Transgender Law Center v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Posted on by

Transgender Law Center v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. 3:2019-cv-03032 (N.D. Cal., filed May 31, 2019) and No. 20-17416 (9th Cir., filed December 15, 2020)

On May 25, 2018, Roxsana Hernandez, a transgender woman, died in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE refused to provide her medical treatment. Roxsana entered the United States approximately two weeks before her death, seeking protection after fleeing persecution in her home country of Honduras, and also persecution she experienced in Mexico, due to her gender identity. Roxsana, who was suffering from untreated HIV, suffered from several physical ailments including frequent vomiting, diarrhea, persistent fever, severe weight loss and a cough in which she spat up bloody phlegm. She disclosed her condition no later than May 11, 2018, and requested medical attention multiple times. ICE refused and instead shuttled her to various holding, processing, and detention facilities, depriving her of food, water, sleep, and opportunities to relieve herself. She finally received treatment on May 17, 2018. The treatment did not come soon enough, and she died in the hospital on May 25, 2018.

On January 29, 2019, Plaintiffs Transgender Law Center and Jolene K. Youngers filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for any documents pertaining to Roxsana. On April 19, 2019, Defendant ICE acknowledged the FOIA request and assigned it a tracking number. On May 31, 2019, after not receiving any records responsive to the FOIA request, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 24, 2020, the district court granted in part and denied in part motions for summary judgment from both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The case was argued on appeal on November 16, 2021. On May 12, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, vacated, and remanded this case to the district court. The court of appeals held that ICE and DHS had failed to meet their burden to show that their search for records was adequate “beyond material doubt,” failed to support their withholding of responsive documents—including by relying on mere boilerplate justifications—and failed to adequately segregate responsive, non-exempt records.

On October 17, 2022, a magistrate judge held a case management conference with the parties and referred the case to another magistrate judge for a settlement conference. The court continued the case management conference to May 8, 2023. Defendants continue to produce documents responsive to the FOIA request and the case has been referred for a settlement conference. On March 8, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and dismissal.

Documents:

Counsel: Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. | Transgender Law Center | Law Office of R. Andrew Free

Contact: Dale Melchert | Dale@transgenderlawcenter.org

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:22-cv-10301 (D. Mass., filed Feb. 23, 2022)

On February 23, 2020, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (the Clinic) sued Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Clinic filed the FOIA in response to CBP denying entry to several Harvard students of Middle Eastern descent—many from Iran. Some were given expedited removal orders or had their visas revoked, even though the Department of State performed extended security checks during the visa processing.

The FOIA request identified three categories of information the Clinic sought from CBP: (1) records regarding the expedited removal of students at a port of entry; (2) records regarding withdrawal of admission by students at a port of entry; and (3) directives, policies, and communications by CBP regarding visa holders at ports of entry. CBP failed to provide an adequate response. The Clinic requested documents starting January 1, 2012, and the only documents CBP produced were from 2020. CBP also failed to produce any policy directives.

The Clinic filed an administrative appeal, requesting the responsive records and all non-exempt portions of the records. The administrative appeals unit ordered CBP to conduct a new search, but CBP failed to timely respond, and the Clinic sued. Since the initial filing, CBP filed its answer to the complaint, and the parties have filed periodic status reports as production in response to the FOIA request continues. As of a status report filed August 2025, the parties have reached an end result of the litigation concerning the document-related dispute and are addressing the issue of attorneys’ fees.

On September 16, 2025, the district court administratively closed the case, noting that the issue of attorneys’ fees is the only outstanding task. The judge has allowed for further status reports from defendants following the October-November 2025 federal government shutdown.

Documents:

Counsel: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School
Contact: Sabrineh Ardalan | sardalan@law.harvard.edu

Civil Rights Complaint Regarding CBP’s Mistreatment of Harvard Medical Fellow

Posted on by

On April 2, 2021, and April 18, 2021, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) denied Dr. Maryam, a Canadian citizen from Iran, entry into the United States. Dr. Maryam attempted to enter the United States using her Canadian passport and all necessary evidence to support her admission in J-1 status. She and her family planned to stay in the U.S. for two years during Dr. Maryam’s competitive two-year fellowship at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The family planned to return to Canada after Dr. Maryam finished her fellowship.

During her first attempted entry, Dr. Maryam, her husband, and her two children drove with their belongings to the port of entry in Pembina, North Dakota. CBP pulled the family over for secondary inspection after seeing Dr. Maryam and her husband were born in Iran. CBP arbitrarily and discriminatorily interrogated Dr. Maryam’s husband for eight hours about his past in Iran, his thoughts and feelings about the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and his previous compulsory military service. Eventually, the family was turned back for allegedly failing to show non-immigrant intent—even after providing evidence of assets and ties to Canada. CBP issued an expedited removal order against Dr. Maryam’s husband and asked Dr. Maryam to withdraw her request for admission. CBP also took both fingerprints and DNA samples from Dr. Maryam and her husband before the family left the facility.

On April 18, 2021, Dr. Maryam attempted to enter the United States again. She planned to fly from Toronto to the United States, but CBP once again interrogated her and turned her back. This time, the CBP officer in secondary inspection denied her entry because (1) she allegedly had to wait until her husband’s case was resolved and (2) the CBP officer incorrectly told her that there that a “travel ban” against Iranian nationals prevented her from lawfully entering the country.

After her attempts to enter the U.S., Dr. Maryam filed an application for a J-1 visa with the U.S. Consulate (even though Canadian citizens are not required to apply for a visa in advance to enter the United States). The U.S. Consulate in Calgary refused to adjudicate the case, saying that it was waiting for her husband’s case to first be resolved.

In response to the inhumane treatment and rejection of Dr. Maryam and her family, Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program filed an administrative complaint to the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), requesting CRCL to further investigate the April 2 and April 18 incidents. Additionally, the Program filed a writ of mandamus in the district court, requesting the Department of State adjudicate Dr. Maryam’s visa within 15 days of an order, pursuant to the Administration Procedures Act (APA) or to the court’s Mandamus authority. (Case No. 1:22-cv-1162-ZMF (D.D.C.).) On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the mandamus action.

Counsel: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School
Contact: Sabrineh Ardalan | sardalan@law.harvard.edu