F OR P UB LIC AT ION



### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

G A BR I EL R

U IZ -D I AZ ; H YUN S O O K S ONG ; C I NDY L EE M A RSH ; P ET ER G I L L E TTE ; P AB L O S ANDOVA L ; Y U R IY K AS YANOV ; L E LIA T EN REY RO -V I ANA ; E DGAR DO G AS TON R OMER O L AC UE S TA ; R OS AR I O RAZ O R O M ERO ; Y OUN S U N AM ; L AND O F M ED I C I NE ; U K R AI NI AN A U T O CE PH A LO U S O R THODOX C H U RCH ; S EA T T LE M ENNON I TE C H U RCH ; S A LECK O UL D D AH O U LD S I DI NE ; H AR OL D M I CHAEL C A RL L AP I AN , Plain tif fs - Ap pe lla nts ,

v.
U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ; U NI TED S T A T ES C IT IZE N SH IP AND I MMI GR ATI ON S ER VI CE S ; U NI TED S T A T ES D EP AR TMENT O F H OMEL AND S E C UR I TY ; U NI TED S T A T ES D EP AR TMENT O F J U STI CE ; J AN E T A. N AP OL I TANO , Secre tary

of Depa rtment of Homela

nd No. 11-35580

D.C. No. 2:0 7- c v- 01 88 1- RSL

ORDER AND AMENDED OPI

NI ONR U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 2

T h e H on or abl e Je d S. Rak of f , Se n i or U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Ju dg e f or * t he So ut hern D i st ri ct of N ew Y o rk, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. Se c ur ity ; E RI C H. H OL DER , JR ., At tor ne y Ge ne ra l; A L EJ ANDR O M AYOR K AS , Direc tor of Citiz enship and I mmi g ratio n Se rv ic e s, Defendants - A

ppellees

.

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Wester

n District of Washington Robert S. L asnik, District J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted Aug ust 27, 2012–Seattle, Washington

Filed Oc tober 5, 2012 Amended N ovember

26, 2012

B e fo re : Ma

ry M. Sc hr oe de r a

nd Ron a ld M . G ou ld, Cir c uit J udg es, and Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge. *

Orde r; Opinion by

J udg e Schroe derR U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 3

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y **

Im m igration The pa nel af firmed the district c ourt’s sum mary judgme nt in favor of

the g overnme nt in a class ac tion b rought by non-citizen relig ious worker s and org anizations that employ the m. T he pa

ne l he ld t

hat regulatio n 8 C.F .R. § 245.2(a) (2)( i)(B ), under which plaintiff e mploy ees c annot fi le vis a a pp lic a tio ns c on c ur

re ntl y wi th t he pe tit ion s o f t

he ir sponsoring employ ers, doe s not violate the Rel i gious Fr eedom Restoration Act, bec ause it does not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ relig ious ex erc ise. The pa nel hel d t h at t he re g ulation does not violate plaintiffs’ e qual pr ote c tio n rig hts , b e c a

us e the g ov e rnme nt e sta

bli sh e d th a t it s conce rns about fr aud in the re ligious worker v i sa prog ram constituted a rational basis to treat re ligio u s worke rs dif fe re ntl y fr om o the r e mpl oy

me nt- ba se d v isa

a pp lic ants

. The pa nel also held that e ven if the regulation makes it more diffi cu l t for plaintiffs to obtain a djustment of status, it does
no t vi olate du e pr oc ess bec a us e the re is n o le g iti mate statutory or constitutional c laim of entitlement to concur rent fi lin g s.R U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 4

CO UN SEL

Rob e rt Pa uw , Se a ttl e , Wa sh ing ton , f or pla int if fs -a pp e lla nts

. Me lis sa S. L e ibm an, De pa

rtme nt o f Jus tic e , Wa sh ing ton , D C, fo r d e fe nd ants -a

pp e lle e s.

OR

DE R The Opinion filed Oc to b er 5, 2012, is amended a s follows: on slip Opini on p age 12168, line 10, delete the fo l l o wi n g t ex t : s p e c i al i m m i gra n t ; o ns l i p Op i n i o np age 12 16 8, lin e 11 , d e le te the fo llo wi ngte xt: Justi c e De pa rtme nt; and on slip Opinion pag e 12168, lines 13–14, ame nd the following text : 18 U.S.C. § 1255(a) to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).

OP IN ION
SCHROEDER, Ci rcuit Judge:

Pla inti f f s r e p r e s e n t a

c la s s o f

n o n
- c it iz e nr e li g io us wo rk e rs , to g e the r w iththe or g anizatio ns tha t e mploy the m, who have been a dmitted to this country on five-year

relig ious worke r visas. They

challeng e a r egulation gove rning the proce ss by

which re ligious workers can apply for a djustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S .C. § 1255(a). Under the regulation, 8 C.F .R. § 245.2(a) (2)( i)(B ), such employ ees a re amo ng the categ ories of a pplicants for la

wful per manent resident ( “L PR”) status who cannot file their visa applications
c on c ur re ntl y wi th t he pe tit ion s o f t

he ir sp on so ri nge mpl oy e rs

. The e mploy ees m

u st wait for the Citizenship and I mmigration Service (“U SCI S”) to ap p rove their employ ers’ petitionsR U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 5

be fo re the y

c an fil e a pp lic a tio ns

. Th e pla int if

fs wo uld lik e to be a ble to f ile the e mpl oy e e s’ a

pp lic a tio ns c on c ur

re ntl y wi th the petitions of the sponsoringemploy ers, as other categ ories of applica nts for L PR st atus are permitted to do.

Th e e mpl oy

me nt- ba se d immig ratio n

v i s a s t a t ut e , 8 U .S. C. § 1 15 3( b) , d ivi de s a

pp lic ants fo r s uc h v isa s into c a te g or ie s, four of which ar e important her e. The first -pre fer ence cate g ory is for “pr iority ” wor kers, suc h as prof

essional athletes a

nd profe ssors; t h e s econd- pref ere nce is for pro fe s s ionals who hold advanc ed degree s; and the thirdpr e fe re nc e is f

or oth e r s kil le d a

nd un sk ill e d w or

ke rs

. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 )

– ( 3 )

. T h e f o urth

- p r e f

e r e n c e c a t e g o r

y, into which plaintiffs here fall, ar e “spe cial im migr ants.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(4). This ca t eg ory includes re ligious
wo rk e rs and

oth e r s pe c ia lized gr ou ps , s uc h a s c e rt a in phy sic ians and

int e rn a tio na l br oa dc a ste rs. 8 U .S. C. § 1101(a) (27).

The re g ulation at issue here allows conc u rr ent filing for employ ees in the f

irst three e mploy

ment-b ased imm igr ation cate g ories: “the a lien benef iciary ’s adjustment application will be considere d proper l y filed whe ther submitted
concur rently with or subsequent to the visa petition, provided that it mee ts the fi lin g re qu ir e me nts .” 8 C. F .R. § 245.2(a) (2) (i )( B) . The option to file conc urre ntly is not extended to the fourth-pr efe renc e cate g ory , which includes
re lig iou s w or

ke rs

. We have se en this case before, when we held that the regulation was not contra

ry to the s tatute and r emande d to the dis tr ic t c ourt

to c on side r p la int if

fs ’ r e ma ini ngc on te nti on s. Ruiz-Diaz v. United States , 618 F.3d 1055 ( 9th Cir. 2010).R U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 6

On re mand , the dis tr ic t c ourt re je c te d a ll o f t

he pla int if

fs ’
rema ini n g ar g u me n ts , an d th e p la inti f f s n o w r a is e thr e e of th e m o n a

p p e a l. T h e y ar e th a t th e r e g u lati o n v io la te s the Re lig iou s F re e do m Re sto ration Ac t ( “ RF RA ” ), 42 U. S.C. § 2000bb-1, and the constit u t ional protec tions of equal protec tion a

nd due proce ss. The contentions all ste m fr om frustration with the lag in the a g ency ’s proc essing of
e mpl oy e rs ’ p e tition s and the re su lti ngde lay

in p la int if

fs ’ ability to file their vis a applications. I f there is no pending vis a a pp lic a tio n w he n a

pla int if f’ s in iti a l f

ive-y ear v isa
e xpir e s, un lawf

ul pr e se nc e tim e be g ins to a c crue , with deleteri o us immi g ration conse quence s. There fore , as we h av e e ar l i e r

s t a t e d , “ R

u i z - D i a z ’ s r e a l c o n c e r

ni s t h a tU S C IS does not proce ss the petition for a spe cial immigr ant re ligious worke r visa soon enoug h.” Ruiz-Diaz , 618 F.3d at 1061.

RELIGIOUS F REEDOM RESTO RATION ACT

Plaintiffs’ first contention is that the re g ulat i on violates RF RAbe c a

us e it s ub sta

nti a lly burd e ns th e e xer c ise of

the ir relig ion. RFRA require s the fede ral g overnme nt to show that it is a dv anc inga

c omp e lli ngint e re st thr ou g h th e le a st restric tive means p o s s ib le w h e r e the g overnme nt “substantially

burden[s] a person’s exerc ise of relig ion,” eve n wher e, as he re, the burden r esults from a r u l e o f g ener al applicability . 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. We ha ve held that the g overnme n t imposes a substantial burden “ only when ind ivi du a ls a

re fo rc e d to c ho os e be tw e e n f oll ow ingthe te ne ts of their r elig ion and re ceivinga g overnme ntal b en ef i t or
coer ced to act contra

ry to the ir relig ious beliefs by the threat of civil or cr iminal sanctions.” Nav ajo Nat ion v . U .S . F or est Serv. , 535 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (en ba nc) ( internal citations omitt ed).R U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 7

In Navajo Nation , we c ited Sherbert v. V erner , 3 74 U. S. 39 8 ( 19 63 ), a s an e xamp le of a fo rc e d c ho ic e that Co ng res s intended to pre vent by

passing RFRA. In Sherbe rt , the Supreme Court found that a n ag ency ’s dec ision to deny unemploy ment benef

its becaus e of a c laimant’s re ligious objection to workingon S aturday burdene d her e x erc ise of relig ion. Under those circ umstances, the claimant wa s forc ed to choose be tween the tenets of he r re ligion—follow i n g the prohibition on Saturday work—a nd rec eiving a g overnme ntal benef it—unemploy

ment pay ments. Id. a t 40 5– 06 . A lso in Na vajo Nation we c ited W isconsin v. Y

oder , 406 U.S. 205 (1972), as an example of the sec ond ty pe of substantial burd e n o n r e lig iou s e xer c ise RF RAwa s inte nd e d to pr e ve nt. In Y oder , the Sup re me Court he ld t hat a state c ri min a l st a tut e that r e qu ir e d p are nts to s e nd the ir c hil dr e n to pu

bli c or pr ivate school in fr ing e d o n th e re lig iou s li be rt ie s o f A mis h p are nts wh o s e b el i ef

s d i d n o tp erm i tth ei r c h i l dr e nt o at t en d h i gh school. Id. The Supreme Court in Emp l oyme nt Division v. Sm ith , 494 U.S. 872 (1990), over ruled Sh e rb e rt

and Y oder , and we held in Navajo Nation that by passing RFRA, Congr ess intended to re store those principles and pre vent such burde ns on relig ious ex erc ise in the fu ture. Nav ajo Nation , 535 F.3d at 1067–69.

Th e fu nd ame nta l fl aw in t

he pla int if

fs ’ r e lia nc e on RF RA is that th e c ha lle ng e d r e g ulatio n d oe s n ot a ff e c t th e ir a bility to pr actice their relig ion. They are subject to r emov al after five y ear s beca

use their visas have expired, not bec ause the y are pr a c tic ingthe ir

re lig ion . T he ir

ina bil it y to file the ir applications conc urre ntly

with their employ ers’ petitions may well delay relig ious w orker s from adjusting status befor e their tempora

ry visas expi re , b u t it does not prevent them fr om p ra c tic ingthe ir

re lig ion . N or do es the de lay in t he ir ability to file visa applications r eq uire plaintiffs to g ive upR U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 8

any tenet of the ir relig ion to acce ss a g overnme nt benef it, i.e., L PR st atus. As the district c ourt observe d, “[g]iving up one’s relig ious practice s would not improve the ch an ces of ob ta ini nga dju stm e nt o f s tatus or he lp t he a lie n a

vo id deportation: in fac t, abandoning the re ligious work on which the alien’ s admission was premised c ould pr ec l u d e the requ es ted re lief.” A ccor dingly , the re g ulation does not imp os e a su bs tanti a l bu

rd e n o n p la int if

fs ’ r e lig iou s e xer c ise and ther efor e does not violate RF RA.

EQU AL P RO TEC TIO N

Plaintiffs’ second c ontention is tha t t h e r e g ulation violates Equal Protection princ iples on the t heory that it discriminates on the basis of re ligion. The regulation, of course , does not targ et any

relig ious gr oup. I t affe cts all members of the fourth-pr efe renc e visa c ateg ory who h ave been a dmitted on employ ment-base d visas. See8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)

. Even a ssuming immigr ant re ligious worke rs ar e being tr e a te d d if

fe re ntl y fr om o the r e mp lo y

me nt- ba se d v isa
a pp lic ants , th e dif

fe re nc e re qu ir e s o nly

a ratio na l ba sis to survive an E qual Protection cha lleng e. See Fi allo v . B e ll , 43 0 U .S. 78 7, 79 2 (19 77 ); Mathews v. Diaz , 426 U.S. 67, 79–80 (1976) ( “In the exercise of i t s b road pow er ove r natura liz ation and immigr ation, Congr ess re g ularly makes rules that would be una cce ptable if applied to citiz ens.”) . The g overnme nt has satisfied that standa rd. I t has shown that there have be en conc erns a bout fraud in the relig ious worker visa prog ram, and as a result, the g overnme n t h as encounte red diff

iculties in determining which applica nts are bon a fi de re ligious worke rs. See, e .g. , U.S. Depar tment of Ho m eland Sec urity , U.S. Cit izenship and I mmigration S e r v i c e s , O f f i c e o f F r a u d D e t e c t i o nan d

N a t i o n a l S e c ur i ty,R U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 9 Religious Worker Be nefit Fr aud Assessment S u mmary (2006); U.S. Go v ern m en tAc co un t ab i l i ty Of fi ce , I m m i gra t ion B e ne fi ts: Ad dit ion a l Contr ols and a Sanc tio ns Str a te g y

Cou ld Enhanc e DHS’s Ability

to Control Bene fit Fra

ud 4 (2006). We apply rational ba sis rather th an heightene d scrutiny beca use we defe r to the political branc hes in the immigration f ie ld

. See M

athe ws , 4 26 U. S. at 81 (“ Sin c e de c isi on s in [immi g ratio n] matte rs may imp lic a te our r e latio ns wi th fore ign pow ers, a

nd since a

wide var iety

of cla ssifications must be defined in the lig ht of cha ng ing polit i ca l and economic c ircumstance s, such dec isions are fr eq uently of a ch aracter more a ppropriate to either the L eg islature or the Ex ecutiv e tha

n to the Judic iary .” ); Ram v. I .N.S. , 2 4 3 F .3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2001) (“ ‘L ine-dra wing ’ dec isions made by Congr ess or the Pre sident in the context of imm igr at ion and
natur a lizatio n mu st b e up he ld if the y are ratio na lly

re la te d to a leg itimate gove rnment purpose .”). The district court expressed it well when it conc luded:

The bar on concur

rent filings is a ra t i onal
re g u lato r y a tt e mp t to r e d

u c e f r a u d in the relig ious worker prog ram. Give n the g overnme nt’s leg itimate in tere st in reducing fra ud and the br oad def

ere nce c ourts show the deter m inations of political branc hes in the context of immigration, the bar on c oncurr ent f i l i n g s w i th s t an d s [ E qu a l P r o t e c t i o n ] s c r u t i n y. (footnote omitted).R U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 10

DU E P RO CE SS

Plainti ff s’ third contention is that the re g ulation violates due process. This argument also is rooted in the delay s they experience in having applications proce ssed, delay s that often
me an th a t th e ir

fi ve -ye ar vis a s h ave e xpir e d b e fo re the ir employ ers’ petitions can be a cted upon. Ruiz-Diaz , 618 F.3d at 1062 (“ [D] elay

is in effe ct denial.” ). De lay may indeed be indicative of a sy stem that is not working eff ectively

. But the
re g ulator y ba r a g a ins t c on c ur

re nt f ili ng s, e na c te d f

or va lid
rea sons, is not what give s rise to these de lay s. R at h er , the de lay s st e m f

ro m r outin e pr oc e ssi ngtim e s.
Whil e the r egulat ion may

compound frustration caused by de lay , p lai ntif

fs c ann ot c la im that th e ir du e pr oc e ss r ig hts have be e n v iol a te d unle ss t he y have so me “le g iti mate c la im of e nti tle me nt” to h ave the pe tit ion s a pp ro ve d befo re the ir visas expire. S

e e B o a rd o f R e g e n t s v

. Ro th , 408 U.S. 564, 57 7 ( 19 72 ) ( re qu ir inga

“ le g iti mate c la im o f e nt it lemen t” to a g overnme ntal benef

it for due pr ocess an al y sis). We have alre ady held that the adjustment of s tatus statute does not confe r a rig ht to concur

rent filing s. See R uiz-Diaz , 618 F.3d at 1061. In Ruiz-Diaz , w e he ld t hat th e a g e nc y

re a so na bly interpre ted the statute to mean that the a g ency had to appr ove the employ er’ s petition for the visa bef ore it consider ed the non-citizen’s application. “I t is not manifestly contra ry to the statute for the ag ency

to acc ept t he applications of alien benef iciarie s of spec ial immigra nt relig ious worker

visas for filing a nd pro cessingonly

when [the petitions have bee n approve d].” Id. Be y ond the s tatute, t he plainti ffs point to no other c on c e iva

ble so ur c e of

a c la im o f e nti tle me nt t o c on c ur re nt f ili ngor to e arl ie r d isp os iti on s.R U IZ -D I A Z V

. U

NI TED S TA TES 11

Pla int if fs ’ d ue pr ocess argume nt f

ur the r r e lie s o n c a se s, unlike this one, in which individuals had a st atutory or c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t t o th e g o v e r n m e n t a l b e n e f

i ta t i s s u e

. In Ex P a rte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941), for example, the Sup re me Court str

uc k dow n a p ri so n r e g ulatio n r e qu ir inga ll inmate leg al documents to b e cl eared by the par ole boar d. The Court found t

h a t the regulations prevente d prisoners f rom filing pe titions for wr its o f habeas cor pus and we re thus unconstitutional. Id. at 549. S imilarly , in Oran tesHernande z v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549 ( 9th Cir. 1990), we upheld an injunction requiring an i mmigration ag ency to give notice to certain refug ees of their st atutory rig ht to apply for
a sylum , b e c a

us e the a g e nc y

ha d imp e de d the re fu g e e s’ a bil ity to apply

. Id. at 557. I n c on tr a st, he re we have e xplic itl y found t h at the under lying statute does not confe r a r ight of
concur rent a pplication to the plaintiffs. Ruiz-Diaz , 618 F.3d at 1061. Ther efor e, eve n if the re gu l at ion makes it more difficult for pla intiffs to obtain a d j u s t m ent of status, it does
n o t v i o l ate due proce ss as there is no leg itimate statutory or c on sti tut ion a l c la im o f e nti tle me nt t o c on c ur re nt f ili ng s.

In sum, the regulation does not ba r relig ious w orker s from applying f or adjustment of status. The re g ulation has only the prac tical ef

fec t of making it nece ssary for r elig ious employ ers to file visa petitions earlier

. There is theref ore no violation of pla int if fs ’ d ue pr oc e ss rig hts

. AF F IRM ED

.