Full text
MOTION TO FILE BRIEF OF
AMICUS CURIAE COUNCIL 119
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
KATHLEEN R. HARTNETT (314267)
ZOË HELSTROM (339093)
khartnett@cooley.com
zhelstrom@cooley.com
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4004
Telephone:
+1 415 693 2000
Facsimile:
+1 415 693 2222
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
East
Bay
Sanctuary
Covenant;
Central
American Resource Center; Al Otro Lado;
Innovation Law Lab; Tahirih Justice Center;
National Center for Lesbian Rights; Immigrant
Defenders
Law
Center;
and
American
Gateways,
Plaintiffs,
Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States,
in his official capacity; Merrick Garland,
Attorney General, in his official capacity; U.S.
Department of Justice; David Neal, Director of
the Executive Office for Immigration Review;
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland
Security,
in
his
official
capacity;
U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Ur Jaddou,
Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, in her official capacity; U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services; Troy A.
Miller, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, in his official capacity;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Tae D.
Johnson, Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:18-cv-06810-JST
NOTICE OF MOTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
BRIEF
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 174 Filed 06/07/23 Page 1 of 4
1
MOTION TO FILE BRIEF OF
AMICUS CURIAE COUNCIL 119
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
NOTICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that proposed amicus curiae National Citizenship and
Immigration Services Council 119 (“Council 119”) requests leave to file the accompanying brief
in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE
Council 119 is a labor organization that represents over 14,000 bargaining unit employees
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), a division of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”). Council 119’s constituents include approximately 1,400 asylum
officers and refugee officers who are responsible for, among other things, adjudicating affirmative
asylum claims, processing refugees overseas, conducting “credible fear” and “reasonable fear”
screenings, researching conditions in refugee-producing countries and regions, and reviewing
applications for humanitarian parole. Of particular relevance here, Council 119’s constituent
asylum officers are tasked with implementing the final rule entitled “Circumvention of Lawful
Pathways” (“the Rule”), 88 Fed. Reg. 31314, which is the subject of this litigation.
Council 119 has a special interest in this case as the representative of the collective
bargaining unit of federal government employees who are at the forefront of interviewing and
adjudicating the legal claims of individuals seeking protection in the United States, many of whom
will now be subject to the Rule. Council 119’s members have first-hand knowledge of how
mandatory eligibility bars are applied in the context of affirmative asylum adjudications; how the
Rule is impacting pre-screening operations; whether the Rule is consistent with the United States’
obligations under international and domestic laws concerning the right to seek asylum and the
protection of refugees; and whether the Rule is necessary to address the flow of migrants through
our nation’s southern border.
The proposed amicus brief relies solely upon information that is publicly available, and it
does not rely on any information that is confidential, law enforcement sensitive, or classified. It
represents only the views of Council 119 on behalf of the bargaining unit and does not represent
the views of USCIS or USCIS employees in their official capacities.
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 174 Filed 06/07/23 Page 2 of 4
2
MOTION TO FILE BRIEF OF
AMICUS CURIAE COUNCIL 119
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
ARGUMENT
District courts have broad discretion to permit third parties to participate in cases as amici
curiae. See, e.g., Inst. of Med. Educ., Inc. v. W. Ass’n of Sch. & Colleges, 2013 WL 6672443, at *3
n.1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) (citing Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982)). “There
are no strict prerequisites that must be established prior to qualifying for amicus status; an
individual seeking to appear as amicus must merely make a showing that his participation is useful
to or otherwise desirable to the court.” In re Roxford Foods Litig., 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D.
Cal. 1991). “District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal
issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has
‘unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers are able
to provide.’” NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067
(N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)).
As the organization representing the federal government employees charged with
implementing the Rule at issue in this litigation, Council 119 offers an important perspective on
the issues before the Court. By providing a perspective from those on the front lines implementing
our country’s asylum system, who have extensive training in domestic and international refugee
and asylum law, the proposed brief seeks to assist the Court in understanding the ways in which
the Rule is inconsistent with asylum law and is based on arbitrary and mistaken premises about the
ability of asylum seekers to access protection through the Rule’s exceptions to its presumption
against asylum eligibility. The proposed brief also explains that the current asylum system—if
properly resourced—is well equipped to handle the flow of migrants at the southern border, and
that the Rule’s near-total ban on asylum at the southern border is not a necessary, appropriate, or
legal response. Given its members’ roles and experience, Council 119 respectfully submits that
these views expressed in its amicus brief will assist the Court in evaluating the lawfulness of the
challenged Rule.
Plaintiffs and Defendants have consented to the filing of this brief.
///
///
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 174 Filed 06/07/23 Page 3 of 4
3
MOTION TO FILE BRIEF OF
AMICUS CURIAE COUNCIL 119
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06810-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Council 119 requests that the Court grant leave to file the proposed
amicus brief.
Dated: June 7, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kathleen R. Hartnett
KATHLEEN R. HARTNETT (314267)
ZOË HELSTROM (339093)
khartnett@cooley.com
zhelstrom@cooley.com
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4004
Telephone:
+1 415 693 2000
Facsimile:
+1 415 693 2222
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 174 Filed 06/07/23 Page 4 of 4