Amicus Brief — Scholars of Refugee and Immigration Law — Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas (2021-11-19, 3)

Record facts

Full text

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED JANUARY 19, 2022 
 
No. 21-5200 
 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 
 
NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
v. 
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., 
Defendants-Appellants. 
 
On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia, No. 1:21-cv-00100 
Before the Honorable Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 
 
BRIEF FOR SCHOLARS OF REFUGEE AND IMMIGRATION LAW AS 
AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES 
 
NOAH A. LEVINE 
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 
     HALE AND DORR LLP 
7 World Trade Center 
250 Greenwich Street 
New York, NY 10007 
(212) 230-8875 
DANIEL S. VOLCHOK 
SPENCER L. TODD 
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 
     HALE AND DORR LLP 
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
(202) 663-6000 
November 19, 2021 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 1 of 21

 
- i -  
 
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES 
A. 
Parties And Amici Curiae 
Except for the amici joining this brief and any other amici who had not yet 
entered an appearance in this case as of the filing of the appellants’ brief, all 
parties, intervenors, and amici appearing before the district court and this Court are 
listed in Defendants-Appellants’ brief. 
B. 
Rulings Under Review 
The ruling at issue is listed in defendants-appellants’ opening brief.  
C. 
Related Cases 
Amici agree with the assertion in defendants’-appellants’ opening brief that 
there are no related cases within the meaning of Circuit Rule 28(a)(1)(C).  
/s/ Daniel S. Volchok  
DANIEL S. VOLCHOK 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 2 of 21

 
- ii -  
 
CIRCUIT RULE 29(d) STATEMENT 
The amici joining in this brief are filing a separate brief from other amici. 
The separate brief is necessary because the amici joining this brief have a 
unique perspective—that of professors who teach and publish scholarship about 
United States refugee and immigration law.  In particular, they have a strong 
interest in the proper interpretation and administration of the nation’s immigration 
laws for refugees.  Amici submitting this brief were permitted by the district court 
to present their views separately from other amici. 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 3 of 21

 
- iii - 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED 
CASES ........................................................................................................................ i 
CIRCUIT RULE 29(d) STATEMENT ..................................................................... ii 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv 
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... v 
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................................................. 1 
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4 
THE CDC ORDER VIOLATES STATUTES PROVIDING FOR ASYLUM, 
WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL, AND PROTECTION AGAINST TORTURE ......................... 4 
A. 
United States Statutes Protect From Removal 
Noncitizens Facing Persecution Or Torture In Their 
Home Countries ..................................................................................... 4 
B. 
Section 265 Does Not Override The Specific Protections 
From Removal That Congress Has Enacted In The 
Intervening Decades .............................................................................. 7 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 13 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 4 of 21

 
- iv - 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
 
Page(s) 
CASES 
Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021)  ............................ 12-13 
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) ........................................... 7-8 
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ....................... 11 
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) ............................................................ 6 
United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) ......................................................... 11 
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 
8 U.S.C.  
§1101 ............................................................................................................... 5 
§1158 ..................................................................................................... 5-6, 10 
§1182 ........................................................................................................... 8-9 
§1225 ........................................................................................................... 4, 9 
§1229a .......................................................................................................... 6, 9 
§1231 ........................................................................................................... 6-7 
42 U.S.C.  
Part G ............................................................................................................. 12 
§264 ............................................................................................................... 12 
 
§265 ....................................................................................................... 2, 7-13 
 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 
105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 ................................................................................... 7 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 100 Stat. 3009 ..................................................... 9 
Refugee Act of 1980, P.L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 ................................................. 5 
8 C.F.R.  
§208.16 ............................................................................................................ 7  
§208.17 ............................................................................................................ 7 
§235.3 ............................................................................................................ 10 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 5 of 21

 
- v - 
 
42 C.F.R. Part 71 ...................................................................................................... 12 
85 Fed. Reg.  
17,061 (Mar. 26, 2020) ................................................................................ 2-3 
56,424 (Sept. 11, 2020) ................................................................................... 2 
 
86 Fed. Reg.  
9,942 (Feb. 17, 2021) ....................................................................................... 3 
38,717 (July 22, 2021) ..................................................................................... 3 
42,828 (Aug. 5, 2021) .............................................................. 3, 4, 7, 9-10, 12 
 
OTHER AUTHORITIES 
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Signed at Geneva, July 
28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 ............................................................................. 5 
Montoya-Galvez, Camilo, Top CDC Official Told Congress Migrant 
Expulsion Policy Was Not Needed to Contain COVID, CBS 
News (Nov. 12, 2021), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-
official-told-congress-migrant-expulsion-policy-not-needed-to-
contain-covid/ ................................................................................................ 12 
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 
6223 ................................................................................................................. 5 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 6 of 21

 
- vi - 
 
GLOSSARY 
CAT 
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, 
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 
CDC 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
IIRIRA 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 7 of 21

 
- 1 - 
 
 
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 
Amici curiae are scholars with expertise in United States and international 
law governing refugees and United States immigration law; they have collectively 
spent decades researching and writing about refugee and immigration law.  Amici 
are as follows: 
 
T. Alexander Aleinikoff is University Professor at The New School and 
Director of the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility; former United 
Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees (2010-2015); and co-
author of a leading textbook, Immigration and Citizenship: Process and 
Policy. 
 
Deborah Anker is Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School; 
Founder of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic; and author of a 
leading treatise, Law of Asylum in the United States. 
 
James C. Hathaway is the James E. and Sarah A. Degan Professor of Law at 
Michigan Law, University of Michigan; founding director of Michigan 
Law’s Program in Refugee and Asylum Law; and the author of The Rights of 
Refugees under International Law. 
 
Gerald L. Neuman is the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, 
Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School; Director of the 
Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School; and the author of Strangers 
to the Constitution: Immigrants, Borders and Fundamental Law.2 
 
1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other 
than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or 
submission of this brief.  Earlier in this appeal, this Court authorized the 
signatories to this brief to file an amicus brief at the merits stage.  See Sept. 30, 
2021, Order. 
2 University affiliations are provided solely for informational purposes. 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 8 of 21

 
- 2 - 
 
 
This brief provides an overview of the protections that Congress has enacted 
for refugees, often to effectuate principles of international law and United States 
treaty obligations.  As explained below, 42 U.S.C. §265 does not—contrary to 
defendants’ claim—free the executive from the asylum, withholding of removal, or 
CAT protections mandated by Congress. 
BACKGROUND 
In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued a 
final rule authorizing the CDC Director to suspend “the introduction into the 
United States of persons from designated foreign countries” if necessary to address 
the danger of introducing “communicable disease into the United States.”  
Suspension of the Right To Introduce and Prohibition of Introduction of Persons 
Into United States From Designated Foreign Countries or Places for Public 
Health Purposes, 85 Fed. Reg. 56,424, 56,425 (Sept. 11, 2020).  Prior to that, the 
CDC Director—purporting to act pursuant to a previous interim version of this 
rule—issued an order “suspend[ing] the introduction” of persons from Mexico or 
Canada who otherwise would enter a “congregate setting” in a land port of entry or 
Border Patrol station.  Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From 
Countries Where a Communicable Disease Exists, 85 Fed. Reg. 17,061, 17,067 
(Mar. 26, 2020).  This order did not apply to (1) United States citizens, lawful 
permanent residents, and the spouses or children of U.S. citizens or lawful 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 9 of 21

 
- 3 - 
 
 
permanent residents; (2) members of the U.S. military and their spouses or 
children; or (3) persons who arrive at a port of entry with valid travel documents or 
who are in the visa waiver program and not otherwise subject to travel restrictions.  
Id. at 17,061.  Those persons who remained covered after these exceptions were 
denominated “covered aliens,” id., and subject to removal by the Department of 
Homeland Security immediately or as rapidly as possible, id. at 17,067. 
In February 2021, the CDC announced a temporary exception from 
expulsion for unaccompanied minors encountered in the United States.  See Notice 
of Temporary Exception from Expulsion of Unaccompanied Noncitizen Children 
Pending Forthcoming Public Health Determination, 86 Fed. Reg. 9,942 (Feb. 17, 
2021).  The CDC subsequently confirmed this exception.  See Public Health 
Determination Regarding an Exception for Unaccompanied Noncitizen Children 
From the Order Suspending the Right To Introduce Certain Persons From 
Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists, 86 Fed. Reg. 
38,717 (July 22, 2021). 
In August 2021, the CDC issued a new order replacing and superseding the 
previous orders.  See Public Health Reassessment and Order Suspending the Right 
to Introduce Certain Persons from Countries Where a Quarantinable 
Communicable Disease Exists, 86 Fed. Reg. 42,828 (Aug. 5, 2021) (“Order”).  
This Order continues to prohibit the introduction of “covered noncitizens,” defined 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 10 of 21

 
- 4 - 
 
 
to include single adults and “family units,” into the United States along U.S. land 
and adjacent coastal borders.  Id. at 42,837.  The Order maintains the exception for 
unaccompanied noncitizen children.  Id. at 42,837-42,838. 
Before the CDC Order’s issuance, the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(“INA”) already authorized expedited removal of noncitizens who (1) arrive at the 
border without valid entry documents or (2) are apprehended after having entered 
the country without inspection and cannot prove that they have been physically 
present here for at least two years.  See 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1)(A)(i), (iii).  
Immigration officers may proceed to remove such noncitizens immediately unless 
a noncitizen indicates an intention to apply for asylum, in which case asylum 
officers evaluate whether the noncitizen has a credible fear of persecution.  See id. 
§1225(b)(1)(B).  In light of this existing authority, the new authority granted by the 
CDC Order targets a particular group: “covered noncitizens” who would seek 
asylum or withholding of removal. 
ARGUMENT 
THE CDC ORDER VIOLATES STATUTES PROVIDING FOR ASYLUM, 
WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL, AND PROTECTION AGAINST TORTURE 
A. 
United States Statutes Protect From Removal Noncitizens Facing 
Persecution Or Torture In Their Home Countries 
From 1980 through 2008, Congress enacted a series of protections for 
noncitizens arriving or already present in the United States who face persecution or 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 11 of 21

 
- 5 - 
 
 
torture in their home countries.  These statutes effectuate principles of international 
law and treaty obligations of the United States, including those enshrined in the 
1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 
189 U.N.T.S. 150, and its 1967 Protocol, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, the latter 
of which the United States ratified in 1968.  Those foundational international legal 
documents—adopted in the wake of the Holocaust and World War II—recognize 
the critical role that refugee protections play in safeguarding human rights.   
A first such protection is asylum.  Congress established the asylum process 
in the Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102, which largely 
adopted the definition of “refugee” in the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol.  As 
relevant here, United States law defines a “refugee” as  
any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … 
and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling 
to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that 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. §1101(a)(42); compare 1951 Convention art. 1(A)(2); 1967 Protocol art. 
1(2).  With certain exceptions (none of which concerns public health), the INA 
guarantees “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States”—like each 
plaintiff in this case—the right to apply for asylum protection as a refugee.  8 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 12 of 21

 
- 6 - 
 
 
U.S.C. §1158(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).  In other words, while the determination of whether 
to grant asylum is discretionary, the right to apply for asylum is not. 
A second protection is withholding of removal for those facing persecution 
at home.  While the INA authorizes removal of noncitizens from the United States 
for specified reasons, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §1229a(a)(2), it prohibits removal (with 
exceptions not relevant here) to a country if “the alien’s life or freedom would be 
threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, 
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” id. §1231(b)(3)(A).  
Unlike asylum, withholding of removal is mandatory if its requirements are 
satisfied.  See, e.g., INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 419-420 (1999).  This 
prohibition on forcible return to a country where a person’s life or freedom would 
be threatened derives from the international-law principle of non-refoulement.  
That principle is set forth in, among other sources, the 1951 Convention, which 
provides that “[n]o Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in 
any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom 
would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a 
particular social group or political opinion.”  1951 Convention, Art. 33(1). 
Yet a third protection under U.S. law for noncitizens is protection from 
torture, derived from the United States’ implementation of the United Nations 
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 13 of 21

 
- 7 - 
 
 
Punishment (“CAT”).  See Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 
Pub. L. No. 105-277, §2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-2822 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 
§1231 note).  Under the regulations implementing that statute, withholding or 
deferral of removal is mandatory if the applicant shows that it is “more likely than 
not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of 
removal.”  8 C.F.R. §§208.16(c)(2), 208.17(a).  And whereas asylum and 
withholding of deportation require that the threat to the noncitizen be based on his 
or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 
political opinion, a threat of torture need not be so based in order to qualify for 
protection. 
B. 
Section 265 Does Not Override The Specific Protections From 
Removal That Congress Has Enacted In The Intervening Decades 
The CDC Order’s instruction that “covered noncitizens” be promptly 
removed from the United States with no opportunity to invoke asylum or 
withholding of removal—and with virtually no provision for the processing of 
CAT claims—rests on the proposition that a provision of the 1944 Public Health 
Service Act, 42 U.S.C. §265, overrides the statutory protections described above.  
That proposition lacks merit for several reasons. 
First, it is a longstanding rule of statutory construction that “[w]hen 
confronted with two Acts of Congress allegedly touching on the same topic, [a] 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 14 of 21

 
- 8 - 
 
 
Court is not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments and 
must instead strive to give effect to both.”  Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 
1612, 1624 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).  Here, it is entirely 
possible to “give effect” to both the public-health statute and each of the 
immigration provisions discussed above.  Section 265 gives the U.S. surgeon 
general “the power to prohibit … the introduction of persons and property” into the 
United States.  42 U.S.C. §265 (emphasis added).  It is not about removal (or 
expulsion) of persons from the United States.  Nor, importantly, does section 265 
address the myriad protections in U.S. law (described above) against the forcible 
return of persons to countries where they face persecution or torture.  It would thus 
be unreasonable to read section 265 to address a subject about which it says 
nothing—removal or expulsion of persons from the United States—or to negate 
fundamental, internationally recognized, and congressionally legislated protections 
that section 265 never mentions. 
Second, congressional action in the many decades since the Public Health 
Service Act was enacted confirms that Congress would not have understood it to 
override the statutory immigration-related protections described earlier.  To start, 
Congress has long addressed communicable diseases in the immigration laws:  The 
INA states that a noncitizen is inadmissible if he or she has “a communicable 
disease of public health significance,” a determination to be made “in accordance 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 15 of 21

 
- 9 - 
 
 
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”  
8 U.S.C. §1182(a(1)(A)(i).  In making this an inadmissibility ground, Congress 
also made it a ground for removal of persons who have arrived at a port of entry or 
entered the country without inspection.  See id. §1229a(a)(2) (authorizing charging 
of “alien” in removal proceedings “with any applicable ground of inadmissibility 
under section 1182(a)”).  Yet having provided for removal on this communicable-
disease ground, Congress subjected that removal power to the normal defenses to 
removal, see id. §1229a(c)(4), including the protections of asylum, withholding of 
removal, and CAT.  That is, even a noncitizen who is removable on the basis of 
disease cannot be removed if she is granted asylum or other relief.  Given that, it 
would be unreasonable to read section 265—a provision from an earlier public-
health law—to free the Executive Branch from the restrictions against removal in 
those later-enacted laws. 
Congress also has specifically addressed executive authority to conduct 
expedited removal of persons who either arrive at the country’s land borders or 
cross them without inspection—exactly the group subject to the CDC’s Order.  It 
did so in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 100 Stat. 3009.  That law, while 
authorizing executive officials to remove certain individuals expeditiously, 
nevertheless requires that noncitizens subject to this expedited removal process 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 16 of 21

 
- 10 - 
 
 
have an opportunity to present any grounds they may have for asylum, withholding 
of deportation, or CAT protection.  See 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1) (authorizing removal 
without a substantial hearing “unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply 
for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution”); 8 C.F.R. 
§235.3(b)(4) (requiring an interview “[i]f an alien subject to the expedited removal 
provisions indicates an intention to apply for asylum, or expresses a fear of 
persecution or torture, or a fear of return to his or her country”).  The CDC Order 
denies these protections to the same persons covered by the INA’s expedited 
removal procedures: persons denominated “covered noncitizens” by the Order.  
But Congress already considered the circumstances in which inadmissible 
noncitizens could be removed expeditiously, and it made clear that even in those 
circumstances, the noncitizen is entitled to a substantial hearing (at minimum, an 
asylum officer interview, subject to further review) on claims of persecution or 
torture giving rise to protection from removal.  Again, given what Congress did in 
addressing expedited removal in IIRIRA, it would be unreasonable to read section 
265 to free the Executive Branch from the restrictions enacted in expedited 
removal provisions. 
In sum, in the decades after Congress enacted section 265, it enacted a 
comprehensive set of immigration laws that both address the issues at the heart of 
the CDC Order—communicable diseases and expedited removal—and impose 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 17 of 21

 
- 11 - 
 
 
specific restrictions on the authority of the Executive Branch to remove noncitizens 
from the United States in service of important broadly-recognized principles, 
including non-refoulement.  That history is significant because “the meaning of 
one statute may be affected by other Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken 
subsequently and more specifically to the topic at hand.”  FDA v. Brown & 
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000).  In other words, the “classic 
judicial task of reconciling many laws enacted over time, and getting them to 
‘make sense’ in combination, necessarily assumes that the implications of a statute 
may be altered by the implications of a later statute.”  United States v. Fausto, 484 
U.S. 439, 453 (1988).  And put simply, section 265 cannot be read to negate the 
on-point statutory protections that Congress subsequently enacted. 
Nor is such a reading necessary to ensure public safety.  The government has 
asserted that the risk of COVID-19 transmission “is acutely present in congregate 
settings” where a number of noncitizens “reside, meet, or gather in close 
proximity,” and that this creates a risk of “increased transmission not only in the 
facilities, but also in the local community.”  86 Fed. Reg. at 42,833.  As an initial 
matter, recent testimony by CDC officials makes clear that there was no public 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 18 of 21

 
- 12 - 
 
 
health rationale for the CDC’s Order when it was first issued.3  And, even if there 
were, that justification is now greatly mitigated by the widespread availability of 
vaccines in the United States and abroad (including in August 2021 when the most 
recent Order issued).  Moreover, the current legal structure provides the 
government with tools to address communicable diseases while honoring the 
immigration protections Congress has provided.  Those tools include testing and 
quarantine of noncitizens; indeed, Congress has provided for just that power, see 
42 U.S.C. Part G (Quarantine and Inspection), and the CDC has issued Foreign 
Quarantine Regulations pursuant to that authority, see 42 C.F.R. Part 71 (Foreign 
Quarantine).  That is still more confirmation that section 265 should not be read to 
override bedrock protections against persecution and torture that Congress 
(consistent with our treaty obligations) has expressly mandated. 
Finally, it bears mention that the Supreme Court recently rejected the CDC’s 
assertion of “sweeping authority” to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium 
under 42 U.S.C. §264(a), a provision of the U.S. Code section immediately before 
the section at issue here.  See Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2486 
 
3 See Camilo Montoya-Galvez, Top CDC Official Told Congress Migrant 
Expulsion Policy Was Not Needed to Contain COVID, CBS News (Nov. 12, 2021), 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-official-told-congress-migrant-expulsion-
policy-not-needed-to-contain-covid/ (describing testimony by former CDC official 
Anne Schuchat that the “bulk of the evidence did not support” the CDC’s Order 
when it was first issued).   
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 19 of 21

 
- 13 - 
 
 
(2021).  The CDC here similarly asserts authority based on a “decades-old statute” 
that does not “specifically authorize[] the action that the CDC has taken.”  Id.  It 
“strains credulity,” id., to believe that Congress empowered the CDC to nullify the 
specific legislative protections against removal that postdate section 265.  As the 
Supreme Court observed, although the CDC has “a strong interest in combating the 
spread” of COVID-19, “our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully 
even in pursuit of desirable ends.”  Id. at 2490. 
CONCLUSION 
In resolving this appeal, the Court should recognize that section 265 does not 
free the Executive Branch from the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 
protections. 
Respectfully submitted. 
/s/ Daniel S. Volchok 
 
NOAH A. LEVINE 
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 
     HALE AND DORR LLP 
7 World Trade Center 
250 Greenwich Street 
New York, NY 10007 
(212) 230-8875 
DANIEL S. VOLCHOK 
SPENCER L. TODD 
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 
     HALE AND DORR LLP 
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
(202) 663-6000 
 
 
 
November 19, 2021 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 20 of 21

 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of 
Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(i) in that, according to the word-count function of 
the word-processing system used to prepare the brief, the brief contains 2,893 
words, excluding the portions exempted by Rule 32(f). 
/s/ Daniel S. Volchok 
 
Daniel S. Volchok 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
On this 19th day of November, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 
using the Court’s appellate CM/ECF system.  Counsel for all parties to the case are 
registered CM/ECF users and will be served by that system. 
/s/ Daniel S. Volchok 
 
DANIEL S. VOLCHOK 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1923156            Filed: 11/19/2021      Page 21 of 21

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cadc.38067.01208377259.0.pdf

Size

210,740 bytes

SHA-256

330bebbcb057fa82c1a41836aef1f7535ca8db5946a36fad823d3870b8be3c88

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cadc.38067.01208377259.0.pdf

Original

archive.org