FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
INNOVATION LAW

LAB ; C ENTR

AL AM E R IC AN RESOUR C E C ENTER OF NOR THER

N C ALIFOR

NIA; C ENTR O LEGAL DE LA R

AZA; UNIVER SITY OF SAN FR

ANC ISC O SC HOOL OF LAW IM M IGR

ATION AND DEPOR TATION DEFENSE C LINIC ; AL OTR O LADO; TAHIR

IH JUSTIC E C ENTER , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. C HAD F. W OLF, Ac ting Se c re ta ry of Hom e la n d Se c urity , in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; U.S. DEPAR TM ENT OF HOM ELAND SEC UR ITY; KENNETH T. C UC C INELLI, Dire c tor, U.S. C itiz e nship and Im m igration Se rvic e s, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; ANDR

EW DAVIDSON, C hie f of Asy lum

Division, U.S. C i tiz e nship a nd Im m igration Se rvic e s, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; UNITED STATES C ITIZENSHIP AND IM M IGR ATION SER VIC ES; TODD C . OW EN, Exe c utive Assista nt C om m issione r, Offic e of Fie ld Ope ra tions, U.S. C ustom s and B orde r Prote c t ion, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity ; U.S. C USTOM S AND B O RDER PR OTEC TION; M ATTHEW ALB ENC E, Ac ting Dire c tor, U.S. Im

m i g ra tion a

nd No. 19-15716

D.C . No. 3:19-c v-00807-R S Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , San Franc isc o
ORDER 

# F IL ED
MAR 4 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALSC ustom s Enforc e m e nt, in his offic ia l

c a pa c i ty ; US IM M IGR

A TION AND C USTOM S ENFOR C EM ENT,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts.
B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, W . FLETC HER , a n d PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. This c ourt issue d its opinion in Innov ation Law Lab v

. W olf , No. 19-15716, on Frida y , Fe brua ry 28, 2020, a ffirm ing the distric t c o urt’ s injunc tion a ga inst im ple m e ntation a

nd e xpa nsion of theM igra

nt Prote c tion Protoc ols (“ M PP” ). Tha t
sam e da y , the Gove rnm e nt file d a n e m e rge nc y

m otion re que sting e ithe r a sta y pe nding disposition of a

pe tition for c e rtiora

ri to the Supre m e C ourt or a n im m e diate a d

m inistra tive sta y . Tha t e ve ning, we grante d

an a dm i nistra

t ive sta y , a long with a

n a c c e le ra te d sc he dule for brie fs a ddre s sing there que st for a longe rla sting sta y . W e re c e i ve d a brie f from Pla intiffs-Appe lla

n t s on M onda

y , M arc h 2;
we re c e ive d a

re ply brie f from

the Gove rnm e nt on Tue sda y , M arc h 3. For the
re a s ons tha

t follow, wegrant in pa

rt a nd de ny in pa rt the re que ste d

sta y . W ith re spe c t to them e rits of our holding tha t the M PP viola

t e s fe de ra l la

w,
we de ny the re que ste d sta

y . W i th re s pe c t to thesc ope of injunc tive re lie f, we grant in pa rt a n d de ny in pa rt the re q ue ste d sta y .

2I. M e rits

The M PP re quire s tha

t a l l a sy lum

se e k e rs a rriving a t our southe rn borde r
wa it in M e xic o while the ir a sy l um a pplic a tions a

re a djudic a te d. The M PP c le arly viola te s 8 U.S.C . §§ 1225(b) a nd 1231(b). A. 8 U.S.C . § 1225(b) Se c tion 1225(b) divide s a lie ns a pply ing for a sy lum into two c ate gorie s:

“ [A] pplic ants for a dm ission fa l l into oneof two c a te gorie s, those c ove re d by § 1225(b)(1) a

n d those c o ve re d by

§ 1225(b)(2).” J

e nnings v . Rodrigue

z , 138 S. C t. 830, 837 (2018). Se c tion (b)(1) a

pplic a nts a re those who ha

v e no doc um e n ts or fra

udule nt doc um e nts. In fle e ing pe rse c ution in the ir hom e c ountrie s, ty pic a l bona

fide
a sy lum se e ke rs ha

ve e ithe r fra

udule n t doc um e n ts or no doc um e nts a t a ll. Se c tion (b)(2) a

pplic a nts a re “ a ll othe r” a

pplic ants. Se c tion (b)(2) a pplic ants inc l ude spie s, te rrorists, a lie n sm uggle rs, a nd drug tra ffic ke rs. Se c tion 1225 spe c ifie s diffe re n t proc e d ure s for the two c a te gorie s of
a pplic ants. Se c tion (b)(1) a p plic ants who ha

ve e xpre sse d

a “ c re dible fe ar” of pe rse c ution ha

v e a right to re m a in in theUnite d State s while the ir a pplic a tions a

re
a djudic a te d. Se c tion (b)(2) a pplic ants do not ha

ve tha t right. Subse c tion (b)(2)(C ) spe c ific a lly

a uthoriz e s the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l to re quire § (b)(2) a pplic ants to wa it in
3M e x ic o while the i r a sy lum a pplic a tions a

re a d judic a te d. The re is no subse c tion in § (b)(1) c om

pa ra ble to subse c tion (b)(2)(C ). It is e a s y to unde rsta

nd why § (b)(1) a

nd § (b)(2) a

pplic ants a

re tre a te d diffe re ntly . Se c tion (b)(1) a pplic ants poselittlethre a t to these c urity of the Unite d Stat e s. B y

c o ntra st, § (b)(2) a

pplic ants pote ntia lly

pose a se ve re thre a t. The M PP a

pplie s subse c tion (b)(2)(C ) to § (b)(1) a pplic a nts. The re is no le ga l ba sis for doing so. B . 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b) Se c tion 1231(b), pre viously c odifie d a s § 1253(h), wa s e na c te d in 1980 to im ple m e nt our tre a ty -ba se d obliga tion to a v oid “ re foule m e nt” of re fuge e s. R e foule m e nt is thea c t of se nding re fuge e s ba c k to the da nge rous c ountrie s from whic h the y

have c om e . Se c tion 1231(b) provide s, “ [T] he Attorne y Ge ne ra l m ay not re m ove an

a lie n to a c ountry if the Attorne y Ge ne ra l de c ide s tha t the a lie n’ s life or fre e dom

would be thre a te ne d in tha t c ountry be c a

use of the a lie n’ s ra c e , re ligion, na

tiona l i ty , m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic u l ar soc ia l group, or politic a l opinion.” Unde r the M PP, an a s y lum offic e r sc re e ning a sy l um se e ke rs is not allowe d to a s k whe the r the y

fe ar that the ir “ life or fre e dom would be thre a te ne d” upon be ing re turne d to M e xic o. The M PP re quire s a sy lum se e k e rs—

untutore d in
a sy lum la w— to volunte e r that the y

fe ar be ing re turne d

to M e xic o, e ve n though
4the y

are not told tha

t the e xiste nc e of suc h fe ar c ould prote c t the m from be ing
re turne d. Unc ontra dic te d e vide nc e in the re c ord shows not only tha t a sy l um offic e rs im ple m e nting theM PP do not a sk whe the r a sy lum se e ke rs fe a

r re turning to M e x ic o. It a lso shows tha t offic e rs a c tive ly

pre ve nt or disc oura ge a

pplic ants from
e xpre s sing suc h

a fe ar, and tha

t the y ignore a

pplic ants who suc c e e d in doing so. For e xam ple , Ale x Doe , a

pla i ntiff in this c a se , wrote in a sworn de c la

ra tion,

“ W he n I trie d

to re spond a

nd e xpla in [why

I ha d le ft Hondura s] the offic e r told m e
som e thing like , ‘ y ou a

re only going to re spond to the que stions I a s k y ou, nothing
m ore .’ ” Frank Doe , a

n othe r pla intiff, wrote in a sworn de c la

ra tion, “ He ne ve r
a ske d m e if I wa s a fra id of re t urning to M e xic o. At one point, I ha d to inte rrupt him to e xpla i n tha

t I didn’ t fe e l sa fe in M e xic o . He told m e tha t it wa s too ba d. He
sa id tha t Hondura s wa s n’ t sa fe , M e xic o wa sn’ t sa fe , a nd the U.S. isn’ t sa fe e ithe r.” Unc ontra dic te d e vide nc e a lso shows tha t the re is e xtre m e da

nge r to a sy lum
se e k e rs who a

re re turne d to M e xic o. For e xam ple , Howa

rd Doe , a pla intiff, wrote in a sworn de c la

ra tion: “ While I wa s in Tijua n a , two y oung Hondura

n m e n we re
a bduc te d, torture d a

nd kille d. . . . On W e dne sda y , Ja nua ry 30, 2019, I wa s
a tta c k e d and robbe d by

two y oung M e xic an m e n. . . . The y . . . told m e tha

t the y kne w I wa s Hondura

n a nd tha t if the y sa w m e a g a i n, the y

would kill me . ” Ian Doe , 5anothe r pla intiff, wrote in a sworn de c la

ra tion, “ I am

not sa fe in M e xic o. I a

m
a fra id tha t the pe ople who wa

nt to ha rm m e in Hondura s will find me he re .” De nnis Doe , a

n othe r pla intiff, ha d fle d the ga ng “ M S-13” in Hondura s. He wrote in a sworn de c la

ra tion, “ In Tijua

na , I have se e n pe ople who I be lie v e are M S-13 ga ng m e m be rs on the stre e t a

nd on the be a c h. . . . I know tha t M S-13 we re
se arc hing for pe o ple who trie d to e sc a pe the m . . . . This ma

ke s m e a fra id tha

t the pe ople who we re try ing to kill m e in Hondura s will find me he re . ” Ke vin Doe , anothe r pla intiff, ha d fle d M S-13 in Hondura s be c a use of his work a s an Eva nge lic a l C hristia

n m iniste r. He wrote in a

sworn de c la

ra tion, “ [W h e n

I wa s
re turne d to M e xic o from

the Unite d State s] , I wa s m e t by a la rge group of re porte rs with c am e ra s. . . . I wa s a fra id tha t the M S-13 m ight se e m

y fa c e in the ne ws. . . . The y are a powe rful, ruthle ss ga

ng a nd ha ve m e m be rs in Tijua

n a too.” It is c le a r from the te xt of the M PP, a s we ll a s from e xte nsive and
unc ontra dic te d e vide nc e in the re c ord, tha t the M PP viola

te s the anti-re foule m e nt obliga tion e m bodie d in § 1231(b).

C . Sta y with R e spe c t to theM e rits Two of the thre e judge s on our pa n e l, Judge s W . Fle tc he r a nd Pa e z , he ld tha

t the M PP c le arly

viola te s both §§ 1225(b) a

nd 1231(b). Thethird judge , Judge Fe rnan de z , did not inde

pe nde ntly re a c h the que stion whe the r the M PP viola te s

6those se c t ions. Judge Fe rnande z disse nte d

from the pa ne l’ s de c ision ba se d on a point of a ppe lla te proc e dure
. B e c a use the M PP so c le arly

viola te s §§ 1225(b) a

nd 1231(b), a

nd be c a use the h arm the M PP c a

use s to pla intiffs is so seve re , we de c line to sta y our opinion pe nding c e rtiora

ri proc e e dings in the

Supre m e C ourt, e xc e p t

a s note d be low with
re spe c t to thesc ope of the injunc tion. II. Sc ope of the Injunc tion The distric t c ourt e n

joine d the Gove rnm e nt from c ontinuing to im ple m e nt or
e xpa nd the M PP, and re quire d the Gove rnm e nt to a llow thenam e d individual pla i ntiffs to e nte r the Unite d State s to pursuethe ir a pplic a tions for a sy lum . The injunc tion provide s a s follows:

De fe nda nts are h e re by e njoine d and re stra ine d from c ontinuing to im ple m e nt or e xpa

nd the “ M igra

nt Prote c t ion Protoc ol s ” a s announc e d in the Ja nua ry 2 5, 2018 DHS polic y m e m orandum and a s e xplic a t ed in furthe r a ge n c y m e m oranda
. W i thin 2 d ay s of t he e ffe c tive date of this orde r, de fe nda

nts sha ll pe rm i t the n am e d i ndividua l pla intiffs to e nte r the Unite d State s . At de fe nda nts’ o pt i o n , any nam e d pla i ntiff a p pe aring a t the borde r fo r ad m i ssion pursua nt to this orde r m ay b e de ta i ne d or pa role d, pe n ding a djudic a tion of his or her a dm ission a pplic a tion. Innov a tion Law

Lab v . N ie lse n , 366 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1130–31 (N.D. C a l. 2019). W he n suit wa s file d in the distric t c ourt, the M PP ha d be e n a pplie d only at the de signa te d port of e ntry a t

San Ysidro, C a lifornia
. The re are e le ve n na m e d individual pla intiffs. 7B e c a

use the distric t c ourt’ s orde r wa s sta y e d pe nding a

p pe a l, the Gove rnm e nt e xpa

nde d the sc ope of the M PP. The M PP is now in e ffe c t in thefour sta te s a long our southern borde r with M e x ic o. Two of those sta te s, C a lifornia

and Ariz ona , are in the Ninth C irc uit. Ne w M e x ic o is in the Te nth C i rc u it. Te xa s is in the Fifth C i rc uit. For the re a s ons e xpla ine d in our opinion, Ninth C irc uit c a se la w re quire s tha

t
we a ffirm the sc ope of the distric t c ourt’ s injunc tion. Pla intiffs c ha lle nge the M PP
a s inc onsiste nt with § 706(2) of the Adm inistra

tive Proc e dure Ac t, whic h dire c ts a
re vie wing c ourt tha

t ha s found a

n a ge n c y a c tion “unla

wful” to “ se t a side ” that
a c tion. 5 U.S.C . § 706(2). Se c tion 706(2) doe s not te ll a re vie wing c irc uit c ourt to

“ se t a side ” the unla

wful a ge nc y

a c t ion only

within the

ge ogra phic bounda

rie s of that c irc uit. Furthe r, the re is a spe c ia l ne e d for uniform ity in im m i gration c a se s, a s
re c o gniz e d both by

our c ourt a

nd by the Fifth C irc u i t. Se e Re ge nts of the

Univ . of C al. v . U.S. De

p’t of Home l

and Se c . , 908 F. 3d 476, 511 (9th C ir. 2018); Te x as v . Unite d State s , 809 F.3d 134, 187–88 (5th C ir. 2015), a f f’d by an e qually

div ide d C ourt , 136 S. C t. 2271 (2016) Howe v e r, we re c ogniz e tha t the prope r sc ope of injunc tions a ga inst a ge nc y
a c tion is a m a tte r of inte n s e an d a c tive c o ntrove rsy . De p’t of Home land Se c . v . N e w York , 140 S. C t. 599, 600–01 (2020) (Gorsuc h, J., c onc urring); Trump v
.
8Haw aii , 138 S. C t . 2392, 2424–29 (2018) (Thom a s, J., c onc urring); se e also W olf
v . C ook C ty ., Ill. , 140 S. C t. 681, 681–82 (2020) (Sotom ay or, J., disse n ting). W hile we re g ard the m e rits of our de c ision unde r §§ 1225(b) a nd 1231(b) a s
c le arly c orre c t, we do not ha

ve the sa m e le ve l of c onfide nc e with re spe c t to the
sc ope o f the injunc t ion e nte re d by the distric t c ourt. W e the re fore sta y the injunc tion insofa

r a s it ope ra te s outsidethe ge ogra phic a l bounda

rie s of the Ninth C irc uit. III. De c la

ra tions File d in C onne c tion with the Gove rnm e n t’ s M o t ion to Sta

y Pe nding Disposition of a Pe tition for C e rtiora

ri The Gove rnm e nt’ s m otion for sta y and re ply

brie f inc lude se ve ra l sworn de c la ra tions. TheUnite d

State s Am

ba ssa d o r to M e xic o write s, “ The pa ne l’ s de c ision, unle ss sta

y e d, will ha

ve an im m e diate and se ve re ly

pre j udic ia l im

pa c t on the b ila te ra l re lationship be twe e n the Unite d Stat e s a nd M e xic o.” The Assista nt Se c re t ary for Inte rnationa l Affa irs for the U.S. De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity write s, “ M PP wa s a

c are fully ne gotia te d solution with the

Gove rnm e nt of M e xic o.” She write s furthe r, “ The suspe nsion of M PP unde rm ine s a l m ost two y e a rs’ worth of diplom a tic e nga ge m e nt with the Gove rnm e nt of M e xic o through whic h a
c oordina te d a nd c ohe sive im

m i gration c ontrol progra

m ha s be e n de ve lope d .” The De puty C om m issione r of U.S. C ustom s a nd B o rde r Prote c tion write s tha t
e nforc e m e nt of the distric t c ourt’ s injunc t ion will c a use substa

ntia l disruption a

t 9our ports of e ntry and will c ost substa

ntia l a m ounts of m one y . He write s furthe r that on Frida y , the da y our de c ision wa s announc e d, la rge groups of a lie ns sought
a dm ission to the

Unite d Stat e s at va

rious points a

l ong the borde r. The Exe c utive Assoc iat e Dire c tor of Enforc e m e nt a nd R e m ova l Ope ra tions for U.S. Im m igration
and C ustom s Enforc e m e nt write s, “ [I] f M PP is disc ontinue d, a pproxim a te ly

25,000 individuals e nrolle d in M PP who re m a in in M e xic o m ay soon a rrive in the Unite d Stat e s se e king a dm ission. . . . [I] f [C ustom s and B orde r Prote c tion] is re quire d to proc e s s a pproxim ate ly

25,000 ina dm issiblea lie ns in a n e xtre m e ly

short tim e fra m e
and the n tra

nsfe r those a lie ns to [Im

m igration a

nd C ustom s Enforc e m e n t] c ustody , it would overloa d [Enforc e m e nt a nd R e m ova l Ope ra tions’ ] a lre a dy burde ne d
re sourc e s a

nd c re a te signific ant a dve rse im plic a tions for public

sa fe ty an d the inte grity of the Unite d Stat e s im

m igration sy ste m .” The Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

n ts’ brie f re sponding to the Gove rnm e nt’ s m otion inc l ude s two sworn de c l ara tions. M e xic o’ s Am ba ssa d or to the Unite d

Stat e s from 2007 to 2013 write s, “ T he gove rnm e nt of M e x ic o ha s c onsiste ntly sta te d tha t M PP is a polic y unila t e ra lly im pose d by the U.S. gove rnm e nt. To thee xte nt M e xic o
a gre e d to the polic y , it wa s upon thre a t of he avy and unpre c e de nte d ta riffs.” He write s, furthe r, “ I re

je c t the notion tha

t this C o urt’ s de te rm ination tha t M PP is like ly unla w ful will ha

rm our two na

tions’ re lationship. R

athe r, it is M PP

10itse lf— and the wa y the c urre nt a dm inistra

tion is c onduc ting polic y

towa rds M e x ic o—

that is pa rtic ula rly de trim e nta l to thebila

t e ra l re l a tionship be twe e n the Unite d State s a nd M e xic o .” An e xpe rt on borde r and im m igration issue s write s that it is theM PP that ha s c re a te d c ha os a t our southe rn borde r, and tha t the M PP ha s not ha d a

signific a n t e ffe c t in re duc ing the flow of im m igra nts into the

Unite d Stat e s. W e are not in a

position to a sse ss the a c c ura c y of the se sta

te m e nts. C onc lusion If the la w we re le ss c le ar—

that is, if the re we re any

se rious possibility

tha t the M PP is c onsiste nt with §§ 1225(b) a nd 1231(b)—

we would sta

y the distric t
c ourt’ s injunc tion in its e

ntire ty pe nding disposition of the Gove rnm e nt’ s pe tition for c e rtiora

ri. Howe ve r, it is ve ry

c l e ar that the M PP viola

te s §§ 1225(b) a

nd 1231(b), a nd it is e qua l ly

c l e ar that the M PP is c a

using e xtre m e and irre ve rsible ha rm to pla intiffs. W e sta y , pe nding disposition of the Gove rnm e nt’ s pe tition for c e rtiora ri, the distric t c o urt’ s injunc tion insofa r a s it ope ra te s outsidethe Ninth C irc uit. W e de c line to sta

y , pe n ding disposition of the Gove rnm e nt’ s pe tition for c e rtiora ri, the distric t c o urt’ s injunc tion a ga i n st the M PP insofa r a s it ope ra te s within the

Ninth C irc uit.

11The Gove rnm e nt ha s re que ste d in its M arc h 3 re ply brie f, in the e v e n t we de ny any pa rt of the ir re q

ue st for a sta y , tha t we “ e xte nd the [a dm inistra tive ] sta y by at le a st se ve n da

y s, to M arc h 10, to a fford the Supre m e C ourt a n orde rly opportunity

for re vie w.” W e grant the Gove rnm e nt’ s re q ue st a n d e xte n d our
a dm inistra

tive sta y e nte re d on Frida

y , Fe brua ry 28, until W e dne sda

y , M arc h 11. If the Supre m e C ourt ha s not in the m e antim e a c te d to re ve rse or othe rwise m odify our de c ision, our pa

rtia l gra n t a nd pa rtia l de n ia l of the Gove rnm e nt’ s re que st for a sta y of the distric t c ourt’ s injunc tion, a s de sc ribe d a bove , will ta

ke e ffe c t on Thursda y , M arc h 12.

So or de r e d on M ar c h 4, 2020.

12Innov a tion Law Lab v . W olf , No. 19-15716 FER NANDEZ, C i rc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: I would gra

nt in full the

gove rnm e nt’ s e m e rge nc y m otion for a sta

y of the distric t c o urt’ s injunc tion pe nding disposition of a pe tition for c e rtiora

ri to the Supre m e C ourt. Thus, I c onc ur in the orde r to the e xte nt tha t it gra nts the
re que s te d sta

y . I a lso c onc ur in the orde r’ s e x te nsion of our a dm inistra tive sta y until W e d ne sda y , M a rc h 11. I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

the orde r to the e xte nt tha t it de nie s the sta

y . 

# F IL ED
MAR 4 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS