Amicus Brief — IRAP Opposing Emergency Stay — Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas (2021-09-23)

Record facts

Full text

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED 
No. 21-5200 
____________ 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 
____________ 
NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, et al., on behalf of themselves and others 
similarly situated, 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
v. 
 
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official 
capacity, et al.,  
Defendants-Appellants. 
____________ 
On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia 
No. 1:21-cv-00100-EGS 
____________ 
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE 
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-
APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS’ 
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND FOR  
AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY PENDING DISPOSITION OF  
THE STAY MOTION 
 
 
 
Kathryn Austin 
 
 
 
 
kaustin@refugeerights.org 
Geroline A. Castillo  
 
 
 
gcastillo@refugeerights.org 
Mariko Hirose 
 
 
 
 
mhirose@refugeerights.org 
Deepa Alagesan 
 
 
 
 
dalagesan@refugeerights.org 
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE  
 
Tel: (516) 296-0688 
ASSISTANCE PROJECT 
 
 
 
One Battery Park Plaza, 4th Floor 
 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
New York, N.Y. 10004  
 
 
 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 1 of 20

i 
 
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES 
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), the undersigned counsel of record 
certifies as follows: 
A. 
Parties and Amici 
Except for any other amici who had not yet entered an appearance in this case 
as of the filing of the Defendants-Appellants’ stay motion and Raul L. Ortiz, in his 
official capacity as Chief of U.S. Border Patrol (automatically substituted for 
Rodney S. Scott under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(1)), all parties, 
intervenors, and amici appearing before the district court and in this Court are listed 
in Defendants-Appellants’ stay motion. 
B. 
Rulings Under Review 
Reference to the ruling at issue appears in Defendants-Appellants’ stay 
motion. 
C. 
Related Cases 
Amicus is aware of no related cases within the meaning of D.C. Circuit Rule 
28(a)(1)(C).  The case on review has never previously been before this Court or any 
other court, nor has any other case involving both substantially the same parties and 
the same or similar issues. 
Dated: September 23, 2021 
 
 
 
/s/ Kathryn Austin 
Kathryn Austin 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 2 of 20

ii 
 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 
 
 
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rules 8(a)(4), 26.1, 27(a)(4), and 29(b) and Federal 
Rules of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(4)(A) and 26.1, amicus curiae submits the 
following corporate disclosure statement: 
The International Refugee Assistance Project, Inc. is a private, non-profit 
organization dedicated to advancing and defending the rights of refugees and other 
displaced people through systemic litigation, direct representation, and policy and 
media advocacy.  It has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 
10% or more of its stock. 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 3 of 20

iii 
 
D.C. CIRCUIT RULE 29(d) STATEMENT 
Amicus curiae the International Refugee Assistance Project, Inc. is filing a 
separate brief because, as an organization dedicated to advancing and defending the 
rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and other displaced people, and that has 
represented asylum seekers who have been affected by Defendants-Appellants’ 
expulsion policy, it has a distinct perspective from other amici.  Amicus seeks to 
provide this Court with information about the well-established rights of asylum 
seekers like our clients under U.S. immigration laws and to show how the expulsion 
policy contravenes the text and purpose of these laws. 
 
Dated: September 23, 2021 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Kathryn Austin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kathryn Austin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 4 of 20

iv 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES ............. i 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........................................................ ii 
D.C. CIRCUIT RULE 29(d) STATEMENT ........................................................... iii 
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .......................................................................... 1 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 
I. 
THE EXECUTIVE MUST FOLLOW SPECIFIC PROCEDURES TO 
IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE HUMANITARIAN PROTECTION 
CLAIMS .......................................................................................................... 3 
II. THE EXECUTIVE MAY NOT BLOCK ACCESS TO THE 
HUMANITARIAN PROTECTION SYSTEM ON HEALTH-RELATED 
GROUNDS ...................................................................................................... 7 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................11 
 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 5 of 20

v 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
Page(s) 
Cases 
Grace v. Barr,  
965 F. 3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020)...…………………………………………….......5 
 
Statutes 
8 U.S.C. § 1101 .......................................................................................................... 4 
8 U.S.C. § 1158 ............................................................................................. 3, 4, 8, 9 
8 U.S.C. § 1159 .......................................................................................................... 4 
8 U.S.C. § 1182 ....................................................................................................9, 10 
8 U.S.C. § 1222 ........................................................................................................10 
8 U.S.C. § 1225 ................................................................................................. 4, 5, 6 
8 U.S.C. § 1229a ....................................................................................................3, 4 
8 U.S.C. § 1231 ............................................................................................. 2, 3, 7, 8 
8 U.S.C. § 1252 ......................................................................................................4, 6 
8 U.S.C. § 1427 .......................................................................................................... 4 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998,  
Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681 ......................................................... 7 
 
Regulations 
8 C.F.R. § 108.1 ......................................................................................................... 5 
8 C.F.R. § 208.16 ....................................................................................................... 3 
8 C.F.R. § 208.17 ...................................................................................................3, 7 
8 C.F.R. § 208.30 ....................................................................................................... 5 
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 ..................................................................................................... 4 
8 C.F.R. § 1208.17 ..................................................................................................... 4 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 6 of 20

vi 
 
42 C.F.R. § 34.3 .......................................................................................................10 
42 C.F.R. § 34.5 .......................................................................................................10 
 
Rules 
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 .................................................................... 1 
 
Agency Materials 
Order Suspending the Right to Introduce Certain Persons from Countries Where a 
Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists (Aug. 2, 2021) (Aug. 2, 2021) ...... 7 
USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 7, Part M, Ch. 3 (2021), available at 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-m-chapter-3 ....................... 9 
USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 8, Part B, Ch. 3 (2021), available at 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-chapter-3 ........................ 9 
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration 
Court Practices During the Declared National Emergency Concerning the 
COVID-19 Outbreak, PM 20-10, at 1 n.1 (Mar. 18, 2020), available at 
https://web.archive.org/web/20200320020033/https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1
259226/download ................................................................................................... 9 
 
Legislative History 
114 Cong. Rec. 27,758 (1968) ................................................................................... 8 
126 Cong. Rec. 4507 (1980) ...................................................................................... 6 
142 Cong. Rec. 11,491 (1996) ................................................................................... 5 
H.R. Rep. No. 96-608 (1979) ..................................................................................... 6 
H.R. Rep. No. 104-469 (1996) ................................................................................... 5 
S. Rep. No. 96-256 (1979) ......................................................................................... 6 
Admission of Refugees into the United States, Hearings before the Subcomm. on 
Immigration, Citizenship, and Int’l Law, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 7 of 20

vii 
 
126 (1977) ............................................................................................................... 6 
 
Other Authorities 
The Refugee Convention, 1951:  The Travaux Preparatoires Analysed with a 
Commentary by Dr Paul Weis 235, available at https://www.unhcr.org/en-
us/protection/travaux/4ca34be29/refugee-convention-1951-travaux-
preparatoires-analysed-commentary-dr-paul.html ................................................. 8 
 
Glossary 
CAT  
United Nations Convention Against Torture  
FARRA 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998  
IRAP  
International Refugee Assistance Project, Inc. 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 8 of 20

1 
 
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 
Amicus curiae the International Refugee Assistance Project, Inc. (“IRAP”) is 
a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing and defending the rights of refugees 
and other displaced people through systemic litigation, direct representation, and 
policy and media advocacy.  As counsel to hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers 
before administrative agencies and in the federal courts since its founding in 2008, 
IRAP has direct insight into the worldwide refugee crisis and a strong interest in 
ensuring that the Refugee Act and related laws are enforced in a manner that is 
consistent with Congress’s humanitarian objectives.  Through a dedicated project 
undertaken in collaboration with an organization working at the U.S.-Mexico border, 
IRAP has knowledge of the dangerous conditions Defendants’ expulsion policy is 
creating, and the suffering it is causing. 
No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or 
counsel for a party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation 
or submission of this brief; and no person other than amicus curiae, its members, or 
its counsel made such a monetary contribution.  See Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(E).  
IRAP has sought leave from the Court to participate as amicus. 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Since March 2020, officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection have been 
expelling people from the United States on asserted public health grounds without 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 9 of 20

2 
 
regard for the system Congress created to ensure protection for those fleeing 
persecution and torture.  Congress’s system requires the executive branch to follow 
specific procedures to identify and evaluate humanitarian protection claims 
whenever it seeks to expel, turn away, or otherwise remove someone from the United 
States.  And it bars the executive branch from discounting the rights of people at or 
within our borders who seek humanitarian protection (or “asylum seekers”) when 
providing for the public health.     
Defendants purport to have authority under the Public Health Service Act to 
expel asylum seekers like Plaintiffs and class members without these safeguards.  
Defendants are unlikely to succeed in their appeal of the preliminary injunction 
because, among other things, the U.S. humanitarian protection system that 
Defendants ignore is comprehensive, and its procedures are mandatory.  IRAP 
agrees with Plaintiffs that the Court should deny Defendants’ motion to stay the 
preliminary injunction pending appeal and submits this brief to further detail how 
the expulsion policy is contrary to the laws Congress enacted to protect asylum 
seekers.  IRAP urges the Court to deny Defendants’ motion to stay.  
ARGUMENT 
Under U.S. law, the federal government is prohibited from returning people 
to places where they will be persecuted or tortured and is required to give people 
who reach our borders an opportunity to seek asylum.  See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 10 of 20

3 
 
C.F.R. §§ 208.16, 208.17; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).  To ensure that the Executive does 
not run afoul of these mandates, Congress requires it to follow specific procedures 
to identify and adjudicate humanitarian protection claims whenever it seeks to 
remove a person from the United States.  This system is comprehensive, and there 
is no legal basis for the Executive to circumvent it on public health grounds. 
I. 
THE EXECUTIVE MUST FOLLOW SPECIFIC PROCEDURES 
TO IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE HUMANITARIAN 
PROTECTION CLAIMS 
Congress requires the Executive to follow specific procedures to protect the 
rights of asylum seekers at or within U.S. borders.  Contra Defs.’ Emerg. Mot. for 
Stay Pending Appeal at 21 (suggesting that it is within the Executive’s discretion 
whether to follow the congressional mandates). 
Ordinarily, when the government seeks to remove a person from the United 
States, it must provide a removal hearing with various procedural safeguards—
including access to counsel and opportunities to present evidence and cross-examine 
government witnesses—to afford that person, among other things, a fair opportunity 
to present claims for humanitarian protection.  See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.  To 
demonstrate that the government must protect them from persecution, a person may 
apply for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), which, with limited 
exceptions,  bars the government from removing someone to a place where their “life 
or freedom would be threatened . . . because of [their] race, religion, nationality, 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 11 of 20

4 
 
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”  To demonstrate that 
the government must protect them from torture, the person may apply for deferral or 
withholding of removal under the law implementing the United Nations Convention 
Against Torture (“CAT”), which bars the government from removing anyone to any 
place where it is “more likely than not” that they would be tortured.  8 C.F.R. 
§§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17(a).  In removal proceedings, a person may also apply for 
asylum status, which confers additional rights beyond protection from removal.  A 
person is generally eligible for asylum if they are a “refugee”—that is, they cannot 
return to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of 
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 
social group, or political opinion.”  8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(42).  Asylum status, unlike withholding or deferral of removal, provides 
a pathway to lawful permanent resident status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b), and, 
ultimately, U.S. citizenship, see 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a).  A person who does not prevail 
in the administrative removal hearing has the right to an appeal, see 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1229a(c)(5), and ultimately has access to federal judicial review, see 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1252(b). 
Congress has also created an expedited removal process to permit quick 
removals of certain classes of recent arrivals.  See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A).  Yet 
even as to those people who are subject to expedited removal, Congress took care to 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 12 of 20

5 
 
ensure that any person who might be eligible for asylum or entitled to withholding 
or deferral of removal would not be removed unlawfully:  In the expedited removal 
system, a person who expresses a fear of persecution or torture is referred for a 
“credible fear” screening, see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B)(ii), where they 
are given an opportunity to consult with a person of their choosing, see 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iv); to be interviewed by an asylum officer with specialized training 
and under proper supervision, see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B), (E); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 208.30(d); and, so long as their fear is deemed credible, to be placed in full removal 
proceedings, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(f).  This law creates “a low screening standard,” 
142 Cong. Rec. 11,491 (1996) (statement of Sen. Hatch), so that anyone who might 
possibly have a claim for humanitarian protection can present it in “the usual full 
asylum process” with proper procedural protections, see id.; see also H.R. Rep. No. 
104-469, at 158 (1996); Grace v. Barr, 965 F. 3d 883, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2020) 
(Congress’s purpose to ensure that “individuals with valid asylum claims are not 
returned to countries where they could face persecution” is evident in the asylum 
system’s design and legislative history). 
Congress requires these specific procedures to prevent the Executive from 
undercutting asylum seekers’ rights.  Under the previous system, adjudication of 
claims for asylum domestically was left to the discretion of the Executive and did 
not require any particular procedure.  See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 108.1 (1979).  Congress 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 13 of 20

6 
 
considered this system to be unfair and inadequate, and too susceptible to the whims 
of political climate and world events.  See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 96-608, at 1, 17-18 
(1979) (seeking “to eliminate current discrimination on the basis of outmoded 
geographical and ideological considerations”); Admission of Refugees into the 
United States, Hearings before the Subcomm. on Immigration, Citizenship, and Int’l 
Law, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. 126 (1977) (statement of Rep. 
Holtzman) (lamenting the absence of “specific procedures that would assure that due 
process is granted”).   
Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee Act as a “comprehensive” law to remedy 
this problem.  See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 96-608, at 1 (1979); S. Rep. No. 96-256, at 1 
(1979).  It created a new, “specific statutory basis for United States asylum policy,” 
and directed the Attorney General to establish uniform procedures that would bind 
the Executive.  H.R. Rep. No. 96-608, at 17-18 (1979); see also 126 Cong. Rec. 4507 
(1980) (statement of Rep. Holtzman) (bill “mandates a procedure for the 
consideration of asylum claims”).  When Congress created the expedited removal 
process in 1996, it again set limits on the Executive by, among other things, taking 
care to specify the training, supervision, and review to which the immigration 
officers conducting screenings would be required to be subjected.  See 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III), (b)(1)(E); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3).  And Congress similarly 
cabined the Executive’s discretion in implementing the Convention Against Torture, 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 14 of 20

7 
 
making clear that its prohibitions applied notwithstanding any other government 
policy.  See Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), 
Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 2242(a), 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822. 
II. 
THE EXECUTIVE MAY NOT BLOCK ACCESS TO THE 
HUMANITARIAN PROTECTION SYSTEM ON HEALTH-
RELATED GROUNDS 
Defendants suggest that guarding the public health requires them to deny the 
rights of asylum seekers.  See, e.g., Order Suspending the Right to Introduce Certain 
Persons from Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists (Aug. 
2, 2021), Add.92-94.  But Congress was clear that potential health concerns are not 
grounds for preventing asylum seekers from accessing humanitarian protection. 
First, Congress drafted the humanitarian protection laws such that a person’s 
health would be irrelevant to whether they could be granted asylum status, 
withholding of removal, or CAT protection.  Under CAT, the government is 
prohibited from returning a person to their torturers without exception.  See FARRA, 
Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 2242(a)-(c), 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822; 8 C.F.R. § 208.17(a).  
With respect to withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), a person facing 
persecution is ineligible for protection only if they have persecuted others; 
participated in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture 
or extrajudicial killing; have committed or been convicted of certain crimes; or pose 
a serious threat to the security of the United States.  See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B).  
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 15 of 20

8 
 
This is consistent with the goals of the framers of the Refugee Convention and 
Protocol, from which the withholding provision originated, who rejected the 
possibility of limiting protection on health-related grounds.  See The Refugee 
Convention, 1951:  The Travaux Preparatoires Analysed with a Commentary by Dr 
Paul 
Weis 
222, 
225, 
available 
at 
https://www.unhcr.org/en-
us/protection/travaux/4ca34be29/refugee-convention-1951-travaux-preparatoires-
analysed-commentary-dr-paul.html (“[R]efugees should not be expelled . . . because 
they had been sick or indigent”; treaty “would not . . . permit the deportation of 
[refugees] on ‘social grounds,’ such as . . . illness”); 114 Cong. Rec. 27,758-59 
(1968) (statement of Sec. of State Rusk) (Since “refugees by definition are without 
a homeland, deportation of a refugee is a particularly serious measure, and it would 
not be humanitarian to deport a refugee for reasons of health . . . .”).  A person is 
barred from asylum only for the narrow set of reasons set out in 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1158(a)(2), (b)(2), which overlap in part with the exceptions for withholding of 
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and similarly have nothing to do with health.   
Second, even though Congress created a mechanism in the immigration laws 
for the government to remove a person from the country on health-related grounds, 
it specifically declined to make such health-related grounds barriers to applying for 
and being granted humanitarian protection from removal.  Ordinarily, a person who 
seeks to enter the country or to be granted certain immigration statuses must be 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 16 of 20

9 
 
“admissible”—i.e., they must not fall within any of the grounds of exclusion 
specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a), such as lacking valid entry documents, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i), having crossed the border without inspection, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), or having been convicted of certain crimes, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(a)(2)(A), (B).  A person may also be inadmissible on “health-related 
grounds,” including being “determined . . . to have a communicable disease of public 
health significance,” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1)(A)(i); according to the government, 
COVID-19 is one such disease.1  Yet Congress was clear that a person may apply 
for and be granted humanitarian relief regardless of whether there might be grounds, 
including a health-related inadmissibility ground, to remove them:  A person may 
apply for and be granted asylum “irrespective” of whether they are admissible.  8 
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).   As the government itself has acknowledged:  an individual 
seeking asylum is simply “not subject to inadmissibility grounds at the time of [an] 
asylum grant.”  USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 7, Part M, Ch. 3 (2021), available at 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-m-chapter-3; see also USCIS 
Policy 
Manual 
Vol. 
8, 
Part 
B, 
Ch. 
3 
(2021), 
available 
at 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-chapter-3 
(no 
specific 
 
1 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Immigration 
Court Practices During the Declared National Emergency Concerning the COVID-
19 Outbreak, PM 20-10, at 1 n.1 (Mar. 18, 2020), available at 
https://web.archive.org/web/20200320020033/https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/12
59226/download. 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 17 of 20

10 
 
medical examination or vaccination required for granting asylum).  Withholding and 
deferral of “removal,” for their part, by definition are available when a person could 
otherwise be removed. 
Third, though it rejected the notion that asylum seekers might be barred from 
humanitarian protection on health-related grounds, Congress accounted for the 
public health by permitting the Executive to screen asylum seekers on arrival.  
Asylum seekers, like other noncitizens, may be screened for inadmissibility grounds, 
including “communicable disease[s] of public health significance,” according to 
procedures specified by Congress and the Department of Health and Human 
Services.  See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1)(A)(i).  These procedures permit the government 
to conduct medical exams and to detain for medical screening certain individuals 
arriving at ports of entry or from places “where any [relevant] diseases are prevalent 
or epidemic.”  See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1222; 42 C.F.R. § 34.3.  And they specify that 
when a medical examiner cannot make a diagnosis, the government must postpone 
the medical examination until a diagnosis can be made and, in the meantime, refer 
the noncitizen for any necessary medical care.  See 42 C.F.R. § 34.5.  The medical 
screening and its result may lead the government to charge an asylum seeker with a 
health-related inadmissibility ground in removal proceedings and, ultimately, to 
remove them—but only if they are not granted asylum or withholding or deferral of 
removal.  Whatever the result of the screening, what the government may not do is 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 18 of 20

11 
 
bypass credible fear interviews or removal proceedings, deprive asylum seekers of 
the opportunity to apply for humanitarian protection from removal, or prevent 
asylum seekers from being granted such protection on health grounds. 
In adopting the challenged policy, the Executive has upended Congress’s 
carefully delineated system.  Congress accounted for the public health and at the 
same time took care to ensure that health considerations would not prevent a person 
from applying for or being granted protection. 
CONCLUSION 
For all these reasons, IRAP urges the Court to deny Defendants’ motion to 
stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. 
Dated:  September 23, 2021 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
  New York, N.Y. 
/s/ Kathryn Austin 
Kathryn Austin 
Geroline A. Castillo 
Mariko Hirose 
Deepa Alagesan 
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE 
ASSISTANCE PROJECT 
 
 
One Battery Park Plaza, 4th Floor 
 
New York, N.Y. 10004 
Tel: (516) 296-0688 
kaustin@refugeerights.org 
gcastillo@refugeerights.org 
mhirose@refugeerights.org 
dalagesan@refugeerights.org 
 
 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 19 of 20

 
 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
 
This document complies with the word limit of Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5) 
because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. 32(f), it 
contains 2,437 words. 
This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 
32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has 
been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word for 
Microsoft 365 in Times New Roman 14-point font. 
 
Dated:  September 23, 2021 
 
 
 
/s/ Kathryn Austin  
 
Kathryn Austin 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1915392            Filed: 09/23/2021      Page 20 of 20

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cadc.38067.1208362657.2.pdf

Size

257,163 bytes

SHA-256

09194c765c001c60a04863525165f819138aef57a43095512ff78f4a035b0268

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cadc.38067.1208362657.2.pdf

Original

archive.org