Court Opinion

ID: 9482254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:44:52.442289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:52.018394
License: Public Domain

WALD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In 1986, Congress passed and the President signed landmark immigration legislation, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA” or “the Act”). The Act was admittedly pragmatic, a compromise that sought both to reduce sharply illegal immigration and to provide amnesty for those who, despite their illegal status, had remained in the United States for many years.
To meet its first goal, Congress acted with authority and certainty, and imposed stiff civil and criminal penalties on employers of undocumented aliens in order to reduce the incentives for illegal immigration. To meet its second goal, Congress acted with a corresponding clemency and humanity, acknowledging that although many undocumented aliens “have become a part of their communities” and “have contributed to the United States in myriad ways," they “live in fear, afraid to seek help when their rights are violated, when they are victimized by criminals, employers or landlords or when they become ill.” H.R.Rep. No. 99-682, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, at 49 (1986), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1986, pp. 5649, 5653. To those aliens who had endured such fear for the longest time, Congress offered amnesty.
IRCA’s amnesty program opened — briefly — a window of opportunity for undocumented aliens. For one year, undocumented aliens could come forward to find out if they were eligible for legalization. Much to its credit, Congress recognized that the shadow population of undocumented aliens, long residing in constant fear of governmental authority, would be deeply suspicious of the new amnesty program, no matter how shining its promise. Therefore, IRCA included several measures designed to allay these fears and suspicions and to encourage aliens to apply for legalization.1
The case before us involves this amnesty program. For all of its procedural and institutional intricacies, it presents a rudimentary question: when is a district court authorized to hear challenges to the policies and practices adopted by the INS in its administration of the amnesty program? Fighting the words of the statute and the power of the controlling Supreme Court decision, the majority answers this question “almost never.” Through a crabbed reading of the governing statute and case law, the majority has transformed an unprecedented act of legislative clemency into *761a “hall of trap doors and mirrors.”2
BackgRound
The entangled history of this case is not easily summarized. Plaintiffs — both undocumented aliens and organizations that assist aliens — filed suit in district court challenging the INS’ interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(a)(2)(B). That section sets out as one of the requirements for amnesty under the new program that “the alien’s unlawful status was known to the Government as of [January 1, 1982].” The INS promulgated regulations which defined “known to the government” as “known to the INS.” See 8 C.F.R. § 245a.1(d) (1988). The plaintiffs contended that this interpretation was too narrow and was inconsistent with IRCA. The district court agreed, granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, vacated the INS regulation, and promulgated several orders to enforce its decision. Ayuda, Inc. v. Meese, 687 F.Supp. 650 (D.D.C.1988). The government did not appeal those rulings.
The district court’s Supplemental Order
1. issued on April 6, 1988, stated, in relevant part:
In order to meet the statutory standard pursuant to this Court’s March 30, 1988 Order, a nonimmigrant alien must establish that prior to January 1, 1982, documentation existed in one or more government agencies so that ... such documentation taken as a whole would warrant the finding that the nonimmi-grant alien’s status in the United States was unlawful.
Id. at 666 (emphasis supplied). This order triggered questions about the eligibility of a group of aliens that came to be known as the “§ 265 aliens.” Former § 265 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) required (under penalty of deportation) nonimmigrant aliens to make certain annual and quarterly filings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1305 (1976), amended by 8 U.S.C. § 1305 (1982). Apparently, however, many nonimmigrant aliens failed to make such filings.
Prior to the district court’s ruling, INS regulations made clear that failure to file as required by § 265 did not render an alien “known to the government.” In order to be known to the government, “the alien must have made a clear statement or declaration to [anjother federal agency” which then conveyed that information to the INS or the INS itself must have made an “affirmative determination ... that the alien was subject to deportation proceedings.” 8 C.F.R. § 245a.l(d)(lH2) (1988). However, the district court’s vacation of the INS regulation and its issuance of Supplemental Order I removed the basis for any presumption that § 265 aliens were not eligible for amnesty. Under the Supplemental Order, it could quite reasonably be argued that if “such documentation taken as a whole” included not only papers filed with the INS but also the absence of required filings, then § 265 aliens would fulfill the “known to the government” requirement for IRCA amnesty.
Armed with the Supplemental Order, § 265 aliens approached INS representatives but were advised not to apply for legalization, on the grounds that they did not meet the “known to the government” requirement.3 Accordingly, several orga*762nizations that assist § 265 aliens sought to intervene in this suit in order to compel compliance with and/or to modify the district court’s permanent injunction so as to clarify the eligibility of § 265 aliens. The plaintiffs adopted the intervenors’ claims as their own and the district court issued Supplemental Order V on May 2, 1988.
It is hereby ordered that INS shall be enjoined from denying legalization to nonimmigrant aliens who contend that they violated their nonimmigrant status prior to January 1, 1982 by failing to comply with the mandatory ... registration requirements of Section 265 of the [INA], if INS determines that such aliens have credibly established their willful violation of Section 265, and such aliens have also met all other applicable conditions for legalization.
Ayuda, Inc. v. Meese, 687 F.Supp. at 668.
The government appealed this order and a divided panel of this court reversed the district court. Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 880 F.2d 1325 (D.C.Cir.1989), vacated and remanded, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1068, 112 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1991). The Supreme Court vacated the appellate opinion for reconsideration in light of McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991). It is this case — the government’s appeal from Supplemental Order V — that, on remand, is the first of the consolidated cases before us [hereinafter “Ayuda /”].
But we are getting ahead of the story. By the time the district court issued Supplemental Order V, the time limit for applying for amnesty was effectively over: the Order was issued May 2, 1988, and the filing window closed on May 4, 1988. Recognizing this, the district court issued Supplemental Order IX which established amnesty-application procedures for persons who had failed to file by the May 4, 1988 deadline and who could “show [that] they were misled directly or indirectly by the INS or its agents ... or not allowed to apply or dissuaded from applying for legalization by INS or its agents.” Ayuda, Inc. v. Meese, 687 F.Supp. at 674. Supplemental Order IX was issued on June 9, 1988, and allowed for such filings until August 31, 1988. Approximately 6,000 persons (including both § 265 aliens and aliens filing on other bases) made such filings and the district court appointed a Special Master to evaluate the filings and to recommend possible remedies. See Memorandum Opinion and Supplemental Order XI (filed Sept. 27, 1988); Supplemental Order XII (filed Oct. 28, 1988). By this time, plaintiffs had filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking review of Ayuda I. In light of the circuit opinion in Ayuda I, the district court felt compelled to stay the Special Master proceedings, thereby leaving the 6,000 applicants in legal limbo. In early 1990, the plaintiffs moved for an injunction requiring the INS to provide temporary work authorization to the 6,000 applicants. The applicants averred that they had failed to file timely in reliance on advice from the INS and that had they filed timely, they would have been automatically entitled to temporary work authorization. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(a)(l), (e)(2).
After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that the plaintiffs “are unable to obtain employment solely because they lack the requisite work authorization” and “that this inability has made it impossible for them to provide adequate food and shelter for themselves and their families.” Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 744 .Supp. 21, 22 (D.D.C.1990). The court also noted that the INS had requested that the Solicitor General hold in abeyance the petition for certiorari in Ayuda I and that the Court had apparently acceded. The district court concluded that “[i]t is inequitable for [the INS] to ... delay adjudication of plaintiffs’ rights without affording plaintiffs a modicum of interim relief.” Id. For those reasons, the court issued Supplemental Order XIV which
ordered that, pending a final disposition by the United States Supreme Court of [Ayuda /], and further Order of this Court, the Defendant Immigration and Naturalization Service shall grant work authorization to those aliens who have been deemed eligible ... through plaintiffs’ prescreening process, with the understanding that defendants may con*763test before this Court any determination of individual eligibility.

Id.

The government sought, and a divided panel of this court granted, a stay of Supplemental Order XIV. Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 153 (D.C.Cir.1990). Although Ayuda I was vacated by the Supreme Court on February 25, 1991, the appeal from Supplemental Order XIV remains before us as the second of our consolidated cases [hereinafter “Ayuda II’’].
Ayuda I. Supplemental Order V
I. Federal Question Jurisdiction
The initial question raised by Ayuda I is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f) precludes district court jurisdiction over a challenge to a general policy of the INS involving the eligibility of § 265 aliens for legalization under IRCA. I believe that this question is answered clearly by the express language of § 1255a(f) itself, the structure of the INA, and, most importantly, by the Supreme Court’s controlling interpretation of an identical provision in McNary. These sources demonstrate that § 1255a(f) does not bar district court jurisdiction over collateral challenges to general policies and practices of the INS which are employed in the determination of individual applications.
A.
IRCA established two amnesty programs: a legalization program (at issue in this case) for persons who had continuously and unlawfully resided in the United States for a specified period and a Special Agricultural Workers (“SAW”) program granting amnesty to alien farmworkers who met specified criteria. In McNary, organizations representing SAW applicants and a class of alien farmworkers challenged certain INS practices employed in processing individual applications as unconstitutional and in violation of IRCA. The government argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e) precluded the district court from hearing the plaintiffs’ challenge and that, pursuant to § 1160(e)(3)(A), the plaintiffs could only secure judicial review of their claims if a nonimmigrant alien were subject to “an order of exclusion or deportation,” which was, in turn, subject to review in a circuit court of appeals. The district court, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and finally the Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument.
The Supreme Court began its analysis with the plain language of the statute. Although § 1160(e)(3) provides that “[tjhere shall be judicial review of such a denial only in the judicial review of an order of exclusion or deportation,” the Court noted that “such a denial” referred to “a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(1) (emphasis supplied). “Significantly,” the Court stated, “the reference to ‘a determination’ describes a single act rather than a group of decisions or a practice or procedure.” Ill S.Ct. at 896 (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, the Court embraced the lower courts’ “reading of [§ 1160(e)] as describing the process of direct review of individual denials of SAW status, rather than as referring to general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency in processing applications.” Id. (emphasis supplied). Thus, the Court concluded, § 1160(e) did not supersede the district court’s general federal question jurisdiction.4
*764The Court found further support for that conclusion in the INA’s provisions concerning the scope and standard of judicial review. Section 1160(e)(3)(B), which provides that judicial review “shall be based solely upon the administrative record,” serves as further indication that, in limiting judicial review in § 1160(e), Congress was concerned not with the kind of claim before the Court in McNary, but rather with district court review of individual amnesty applications. Id. Similarly, the Court observed that the statute provided that courts of appeals should review § 1160(e) cases for “abuse of discretion.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(3)(B). The Court found that “such a standard does not apply to constitutional or statutory claims, which are reviewed de novo by the courts” but is instead the alternative standard for “judicial review of an administrative adjudication of the facts of an individual application.” Ill S.Ct. at 897 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the standard of judicial review provided in the Act further supported the Court’s holding that § 1160(e) “applies only to review of denials of individual SAW applications.” Id. (emphasis supplied).5
Finally, the Court completed its interpretive analysis by emphasizing Congress’ use of narrow terms in § 1160(e). The Court compared § 1160(e)’s restriction of “judicial review of a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status” with language elsewhere in the INA which addressed judicial review of all causes “arising under” any of the provisions of a particular subchapter and with another statute which governed review “on all questions of law and fact” under a particular program. Id. The Court concluded that “had Congress intended the limited review provisions of § [1160(e)] of the INA to encompass challenges to INS procedures and practices, it could easily have used broader statutory language.” Id.
All of this leads ineluctably to the conclusion that the Supreme Court’s analysis in McNary controls this case as well. The judicial review provision in this case (§ 1255a(f)) is identical to § 1160(e). The two sections are sister provisions in sister programs and, as the government itself concedes, the identical provisions are entitled to identical interpretations. Accordingly, it seems inevitable to me that the judicial review restriction in § 1255a(f), like § 1160(e), “applies only to review of denials of individual [amnesty] applications.” Id.
B.
The escape hatch from this conclusion for my colleagues is the argument that Ayuda I is controlled by Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984), a case in which the Supreme Court rejected a federal court challenge to the policy of the Secretary of Health and Human Services as to payment of benefits under Part A of the Medicare program. The McNary Court’s own discussion of Ringer, however, drains that argument of all its energy. Ringer involved different facts, different statutory language, and fundamentally different legislative goals. In the end, neither Ringer nor any other authority provides an escape from McNary.
The plaintiffs in Ringer filed an action in federal district court, invoking the court’s federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331), to establish a right to Medicare reimbursement for a particular form of surgery. The governing statute, however, precluded judicial review under § 1331 of “any claim arising under•” the Medicare Act. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (emphasis supplied). The statute required all Medicare claimants to exhaust their administrative *765remedies before seeking review in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Ringer Court predictably found that “it makes no sense to construe the [plaintiffs’] claims ... as anything more than, at bottom, a claim that they should be paid for their ... surgery.” 466 U.S. at 614, 104 S.Ct. at 2021. Because such claims “arise under” the Medicare Act, the Court held that the district court lacked federal question jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs had to exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) before seeking review in federal court. Id. at 626-27, 104 S.Ct. at 2027-28.
Additionally and critically, however, the Court found that even though the Ringer plaintiffs would first have to exhaust their claims through the administrative review process, these plaintiffs “clearly have an adequate remedy in § 405(g) for challenging [in federal court] all aspects of the Secretary’s denial of their claims.” Id. at 617, 104 S.Ct. at 2023.
1. Ringer and Ayuda I Involve Substantially Different Statutory Language and Legislative Goals
The majority in this case argues that the Ayuda plaintiffs’ federal court action is precluded by Ringer. A careful reading of Ringer, however, demonstrates that it is clearly distinguishable from Ayuda I. First, and most significantly, the Ringer Court was interpreting a different statute than the one at issue here. The IRCA provision limiting judicial review applies to “a determination respecting an application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f)(l). The review provision in Ringer, in contrast, withdraws federal question jurisdiction from “any claim arising under” the Medicare Act. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (emphasis supplied). The “arising under” language signals a far broader statutory preclusion of ordinary federal question review than IRCA’s parallel limitation of review over “a determination respecting an application.” Indeed, the Court in McNary expressly noted this very difference, finding that had Congress intended § 1255a(f) to limit review of all INS procedures and practices it could have used broader statutory language such as “ ‘all causes ... arising under any of the provisions’ of the legalization program.” Ill S.Ct. at 897 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1329) (emphasis supplied).
Congress’ more expansive preclusion of federal question jurisdiction under the Medicare Act than under IRCA is reflected not only in the textual language but in the fundamentally different legislative goals of the two statutes. As discussed above, Congress recognized that most aliens trapped for years in an illegal status would be initially distrustful of the legalization procedures in IRCA. By providing for a network of QDEs to offer aliens accurate and confidential advice, by ensuring the confidentiality of all application information, and by mandating widespread dissemination of legalization information, Congress structured IRCA to minimize uncertainty and insofar as possible allay the fears of potential applicants. Precluding federal question review of all INS regulations or general practices would run directly contrary to these statutory policies. For it would mean that illegal aliens living in the shadows of our society would be expected to come forth and identify themselves as such, even though INS officials, by regulation or policy, were telling them they were ineligible for legalization and that the officials would recommend that their applications be denied, and even though they would have no opportunity to challenge those policies except through appeals from later deportation proceedings brought against them. Furthermore, they would be required to wait until after the statutory deadline for legalization had come and gone to find out if their applications were in fact denied, so that no “test” cases could be brought involving individual cases. Moreover, the INS could effectively control any ultimate review of its legalization policies through its discretionary authority to decide whether or not to initiate the deportation proceedings which are the only vehicle for judicial review. It is incredible to believe Congress would have played such a shabby game of “seduce and abandon” with the aliens it claimed to be benefitting.
*766In the Medicare Act, by contrast, Congress had no reason to fear applicants would not file for reimbursement; quite the opposite, its problem was to establish a permanent and orderly process for the millions of claims it anticipated would be filed every year. For that purpose, it “set up a scheme that requires the presentation of a concrete claim to the Secretary.” Ringer, 466 U.S. at 625, 104 S.Ct. at 2027. The Medicare Act, according to the Ringer Court, was intent on balancing the individual hardship caused by uncertainty as to reimbursability “against the potential for overly casual or premature judicial intervention in an administrative system that processes literally millions of claims every year.” Id. at 627, 104 S.Ct. at 2028. Congress’ foci in the two Acts was thus very different: in IRCA to encourage legalization applications to be filed within a very short timeframe, in Medicare to regulate their flow over the long haul. To bar the Ayuda plaintiffs’ access to federal court on the authority of Ringer ignores this fundamental difference between the Acts.6
2. The Ayuda I Plaintiffs are Not Seeking a Substantive Declaration of Their Right to Legalization
The majority asserts that like the suit in Ringer, “this lawsuit is an ... effort to adjudicate the plaintiff aliens’ ultimate eligibility for legalization” as opposed to “a collateral challenge, the resolution of which does not necessarily confer eligibility.” Maj. op. at 749. I disagree. These petitioners are not seeking an ultimate determination of their eligibility for legalization, only a ruling that they could not be turned away at the door because of an erroneous interpretation of the “known to the Government” requirement in the statute. What McNary said about the petitioners there is true here as well.
[They] do not seek a substantive declaration that they are entitled to SAW status. Nor would the fact that they prevail on the merits ... have the effect of establishing their entitlement to SAW status .... [They] would only be entitled to have their case files reopened and their applications reconsidered in light of the newly prescribed INS procedures.
McNary, 111 S.Ct. at 898.
Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 106 S.Ct. 2133, 90 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986), not Ringer, is thus the most relevant precedent. In Bowen, the Court permitted a district court challenge to a rule governing the method by which Medicare benefits were calculated, even though administrative appeals had been mandated for individual reimbursement claims. The rule barred reimbursement for non-Board certified physician services, and that was also the disputed issue in plaintiffs’ individual claims. Certainly no less than in the case at hand, a ruling for the plaintiffs would have gone a long way toward “establishing their entitlement” to the benefit sought. Maj. op. at 749 (quoting McNary). But similarly, just as individual plaintiffs in Bowen still had to meet many additional requirements for Medicare reimbursement, the Ayuda plaintiffs would have to meet the numerous other requirements for legalization in the individual application process. The mere circumstance that both the rule and an individual determination might implicate the same legal issue was not found determinative by the Bowen Court when one attack is directed at a general interpretative rule and the other at an individual’s eligibility for specific benefits. The same result should govern here.
3. The Majority’s Ruling Amounts to an Effective Denial of Judicial Review for Any Substantive Challenge to the Legalization Program
The majority argues, however, that the Ayuda plaintiffs, like those in Ringer, will eventually attain meaningful judicial re*767view upon completing the individual application process, and so their situation is distinguishable from the Bowen plaintiffs for whom all review had been cut off. But this argument totally ignores the McNary Court’s own dismissal of judicial review under IRCA as not only ineffective for fearful applicants, but ineffectual as well for remedying broad deficiencies in program administration.
The McNary Court found that in a pattern and practice action appellate review of an individual SAW application would do little or nothing to illuminate the allegedly illegal pattern or practice. An appellate court, it said, needs the factfinding capability of a district court to effectively adjudicate such claims. 111 S.Ct. at 898-99. Since McNary, the Ninth Circuit has picked up on this theme to find district court jurisdiction for a challenge to the pattern and practice of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in rejecting applications. In Campos v. Nail, 940 F.2d 495 (9th Cir.1991), the court permitted a direct federal court challenge to an IJ’s practice of rejecting all applications for change of venue made by asylum seekers from Guatemala and El Salvador. Id. at 496. The government argued that the claim was barred by a statute similar to § 1255a(f) that limited judicial review to appeals from individual deportation orders. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, noting that such claims were “difficult, if not impossible to present in an individual deportation proceeding or in review of that proceeding before this court.” Id. at 497-98. Moreover, even if an individual alien were able to prove that his case was illustrative of an illegal pattern or practice, the individual review process would still fail to provide meaningful review because
the only remedy available would be the reversal of that case, not an injunction. This would do little to alleviate the harm caused to a class of persons injured by the unconstitutional practice. It is only through an action in district court that the injured class members can obtain an injunction stopping the unconstitutional practice.
Id. at 498 (footnote omitted).
The majority conveniently ignores the McNary Court’s concern regarding the insufficiency of an individual application for adjudicating pattern or practice cases. The Ayuda plaintiffs suffer a like handicap in attempting to prove that the INS has systematically discouraged § 265 applications. Absent a direct federal court action, there is simply no way for plaintiffs in this case to prove, and seek redress of, the allegedly illegal actions of lower level INS officials in discouraging § 265 aliens from applying for legalization.7
The majority also argues — shortsightedly I believe — that only a legal challenge to the interpretation of the statute as opposed to a challenge to practices or procedures is involved here and that therefore the Ayu-da plaintiffs, unlike McNary’s, can receive adequate review through individual cases culminating in deportation proceedings appealed to the courts of appeals. Maj. op. at 749-750.
But even if the petitioner’s claim were so narrowly construed, the McNary Court observed that
because there is no provision for direct judicial review of the denial of SAW status unless the alien is later apprehended and deportation proceedings are initiated, most aliens ... can ensure themselves review ... only if they voluntarily surrender themselves for deportation.
111 S.Ct. at 898 (emphasis supplied). The Court concluded that “that price is tantamount to a complete denial of judicial review.” Id.8
*768What the Court found in McNary obviously applies with equal force here: “restricting judicial review to the courts of appeals as a component of the review of an individual deportation order is the practical equivalent of a total denial of judicial review of generic constitutional and statutory claims.” Id. at 899. That is why the most relevant precedent — as the Supreme Court noted in McNary — is Bowen, not Ringer. See id. The Bowen Court construed the judicial review provisions of the Medicare statute to allow review of challenges to the method for calculating certain Medicare Part B payments. The Court there emphasized its “well-settled presumption favoring interpretations of statutes that allow judicial review of administrative action,” McNary, 111 S.Ct. at 898 (citation omitted), and noted that a contrary interpretation would mean that there would be “no review at all of substantial statutory and constitutional challenges to the Secretary’s administration of ... the Medicare program.” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 680, 106 S.Ct. at 2141. Just so here.
The majority’s reliance on Ringer is misplaced. Ringer involved different facts, different statutory language, and fundamentally different legislative goals. The vigor and clarity of the Supreme Court’s holding is not to be dismissed, distinguished, or eluded: “we hold that [§ 1255a(f)] applies only to review of denials of individual ... applications.” Ill S.Ct. at 897 (emphasis supplied).
At base, the majority and I differ in our vision of this case. The majority sees it as a run-of-the-mill exclusive jurisdiction case in which plaintiffs have to overcome a general presumption that a statutorily prescribed method of review in the court of appeals displaces the more general grant of federal question jurisdiction to district courts in 28 U.S.C. § 1381. Maj. op. at 750, 753. I agree with the Supreme Court in McNary, however, that the provision limiting judicial review of individual denials of legalization to appeals from individual deportation orders is (1) not “exclusive” of ordinary federal question jurisdiction for challenges to generalized rules and practices and (2) in real life effect, tantamount to no judicial review at all. In the case of no, or even fatally defective, judicial review, the burden falls on the government to demonstrate that Congress intended to preclude general federal question jurisdiction. The Supreme Court said as much in a case involving judicial review of the administration of an unemployment benefits program:
[wjhile the Act vested state courts with exclusive jurisdiction over claims challenging a[n] ... agency’s application of federal guidelines to the benefit claims of individual employees, there is no indication that Congress intended [the relevant statute] to deprive federal district courts of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) ... to hear statutory or constitutional challenges to the federal guidelines themselves. Indeed, we have frequently upheld a contrary principle: that although review of *769individual eligibility determinations in certain benefit programs may be confined by ... federal law to state administrative and judicial processes, claims that a program is being operated in contravention of a federal statute or the Constitution can nonetheless be brought in federal court. Cf. Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians,....
International Union, UAW v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274, 285, 106 S.Ct. 2523, 2530, 91 L.Ed.2d 228 (1986) (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted).
The presumptive shoe is thus on the other foot. Contrary to the majority’s pervasive assumption, the right to mount a federal question challenge to general administrative policies or practices of the INS remains unless Congress signals otherwise.9 And McNary made it superclear that Congress did not make that judgment here. “The strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action is not overcome by either the language or the purpose of the relevant provisions of the Reform Act.” McNary, 111 S.Ct. at 899. In my view then, there is no other conclusion possible but that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs’ challenge to the INS’ administration of the IRCA legalization program.
II. Ripeness and Finality
Passing on now to my colleagues’ second ground for denying the Ayuda I plaintiffs jurisdiction, the government argues and my colleagues agree that because the INS has not yet undertaken final agency action on the disposition of IRCA applications by § 265 aliens, the case is unripe.10 In my view, this argument sweeps too broadly. Although finality and ripeness concerns may prohibit the district court from preempting the INS’ primary authority to interpret IRCA and to rule on the eligibility of § 265 aliens, such concerns do not bar the district court from taking measures designed to ensure that the agency’s delayed action does not irreparably prejudice the plaintiffs and does not destroy the district court’s ultimate jurisdiction.
The purpose of ripeness doctrine is to “prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies” and to “protect agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Abbott Laboratories directs us to examine two factors: “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Id. at 149, 87 S.Ct. at 1515.11
In this case, the government does not dispute that the plaintiffs present a “case *770or controversy”; § 265 aliens seek and have been discouraged from applying for IRCA legalization. To this constitutionally mandated extent, the plaintiffs’ challenge is suitable for judicial review. But unlike the plaintiffs’ initial challenge to 8 C.F.R. § 245a.l(d) (the “known to the government” regulation) the § 265-related challenge does not involve a regulation. Moreover, the INS’ Legalization Appeals Unit (“LAU”) has not yet articulated the agency’s policy with regard to § 265 IRCA applicants.12 Therefore, the government argues, it cannot be said that the INS has taken a final agency position on the eligibility of § 265 aliens and the case is not ripe for review.
Although the majority appears content to end its analysis here, I believe that Abbott Laboratories and the weight of circuit precedent require more. “[W]hen disinclined to find finality, ‘we must then weigh this consideration against the immediate impact of the actions on the challengers, and whether that impact is so harmful that present consideration is warranted.’ ” Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 740 F.2d 21, 30 (D.C.Cir.1984) (quoting Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC, 589 F.2d 603, 618 (D.C.Cir.1978)).
This second factor — “the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration” — militates strongly in favor of a finding of ripeness in this case. Absent judicial action, the period for filing for IRCA legalization would have ended and thousands of persons would have lost their chance for amnesty. In purely human terms, it is difficult — perhaps impossible— for those of us fortunate enough to have been born in this country to appreciate fully the value of that lost opportunity. For undocumented aliens, IRCA offered a one-time chance to come out of hiding, to stop running, to “belong” to America. The hardship of withholding judicial review is as severe as any that I have encountered in more than a decade of administrative review.
In short, then, while one of the Abbott Laboratories factors (hardship) points toward ripeness, the other (fitness and finality) points away. Facing a similar conflict in Public Citizen, we concluded that hardship
will rarely overcome the finality and fitness problems inherent in attempts to review tentative positions_ A tentative agency position will not generally be in a form susceptible of review ... and, perhaps more importantly, ... review is at odds with fundamental notions of administrative law that generally require the agency to resolve substantive issues in the first instance.
740 F.2d at 31. The same principle applies in this case: the doctrines of ripeness, finality, and judicial deference to lawful agency interpretations all indicate that the courts should give the INS the first opportunity to determine the eligibility of § 265 aliens.
But — as we explained in Public Citizen — “[t]hat determination does not ... close the book on this case.” Id. at 34. Even though the court may not ordinarily substitute, in the first instance, its own judgment of the way a statute should be interpreted or applied for that of an agency, a court may keep watch over the timing of agency action. Notwithstanding a lack of finality, “courts are certainly not without power to address the interests of a regulatory beneficiary ... when unwarranted agency delay prejudices those interests.” Id. at 32. Accordingly, in Public Citizen we went on to observe that the “record strongly suggests that the pace of agency decisionmaking is unreasonably dilatory” and remanded to “the District Court to take evidence and rule initially on whether the agency response ... ha[d] been ‘unreasonably delayed.’ ” Id. at 34-35. This conclusion comports with Abbott Laboratories’ direction that doctrines of finality and ripeness be applied in a “flexible” and “pragmatic” manner. Abbott Laborato*771ries, 387 U.S. at 149-50, 87 S.Ct. at 1515-16.
Public Citizen clearly establishes that a lack of finality in a context in which continued delay would impose grave harm does not totally divest a court of jurisdiction. Absent final agency action, a court may lack the authority to preempt an agency's primary jurisdiction to interpret the substantive statute, but it still retains the jurisdiction to oversee the agency’s actions, under, for example, § 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(1)) (as was the case in Public Citizen).
This authority is essential to protect the court’s prospective jurisdiction. Thus when intervening events are likely to deprive a court of its jurisdiction, the All Writs Act authorizes the court to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] ... jurisdiction ].” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). In an analogous context, we noted that such authority is not limited “ ‘to the issuance of writs in aid of jurisdiction already acquired ... but extends to those cases which are within [the court’s] appellate jurisdiction although no appeal has been perfected.’ ” Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 76 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“TRAC”) (quoting Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603-04, 86 S.Ct. 1738, 1742-43, 16 L.Ed.2d 802 (1966) (internal quotations omitted)). Accordingly, in TRAC, we held that the All Writs Act “empowers a federal court to issue writs of mandamus necessary to protect its prospective jurisdiction.” 750 F.2d at 76 (emphasis supplied). The district court in this case exercised an analogous power by establishing a mechanism for the collection of applications filed by those who claimed that, in not filing within the statutory period, they had relied on the INS’ unlawful regulations and representations.
The timing of the district court’s initial and unappealed ruling vacating the INS’ “known to the government” regulation on March 30, 1988, meant that the INS would not have the opportunity to take a final agency position on the eligibility of the § 265 aliens before the 12-month filing period ended on May 4, 1988. Until the agency took such final action, the district court could not rule on the legality of that action. Thus, if the district court did not act, the inaction of the INS and the passage of time would conspire to destroy the district court’s jurisdiction over the claims of the § 265 aliens. In such circumstances, the district court has the equitable authority to take action to preserve its prospective jurisdiction and thereby to preserve its authority to review the legality of the INS’ policies and practices.
The exercise of that equitable power in this situation is wholly appropriate. The harm to the plaintiffs of withholding judicial review is imminent, severe, and irreparable; the interim relief is consistent with the public interest as articulated in IRCA; and the time pressures that urge relief arise through no fault of the plaintiffs.13 In such circumstances, I believe that the district court properly and soundly exercised its long-recognized power “to adapt[ the initial injunction] as events may shape the need.” United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114, 52 S.Ct. 460, 463, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932).
Supplemental Order V is properly tailored to suit the court’s limited power in the absence of final agency action. The Order does not substitute the court’s judgment for that of the INS in determining the eligibility of § 265 aliens; the Order is strictly prohibitory: it “enjoin[s the INS] from denying legalization” to § 265 aliens — it does not require the INS to grant legalization. Ayuda, Inc. v. Meese, 687 F.Supp. at 668. As subsequent Orders indicate, the district court recognized the limits of its authority and served not as a surrogate of the agency but rather as a collector of constructively filed applications.14 The district court did not order the *772legalization of any aliens, but merely preserved the status quo by accepting and holding applications from applicants who averred that they would have filed but for the INS’ unlawful regulations. Such an action provided the INS time to develop a policy on the eligibility of § 265 aliens in light of the vacation of its initial “known to the government” regulation. Such actions are fully consistent with the court’s limited power to preserve its own prospective jurisdiction and with its established authority to modify its own injunctions to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
In sum, McNary establishes that IRCA does not preclude district court review of collateral challenges to INS regulations, policies, or practices. Therefore, the district court in this case properly exercised its federal question jurisdiction. Moreover, although the challenge raised by the § 265 aliens may not have been ripe by ordinary standards, such unripeness did not divest the court of jurisdiction. Instead, under well-established circuit law, the court retained the power to preserve its own prospective jurisdiction. Supplemental Order V did precisely that and therefore that Order, in my opinion, should be affirmed.
Ayuda II. Supplemental Order XIV
The original complaint in this litigation was filed on March 8, 1988. Two years later little had changed: the district court had issued a dozen Orders, the government had appealed twice to the court of appeals, and still 4,000 to 6,000 persons waited for their rights to be adjudicated. As they waited their situation grew more and more desperate. The INS enforced IRCA’s new employer sanctions, and the aliens lost their primary source of income — their jobs. They cut their expenses, drew upon their savings, some borrowed money from their friends or from churches or charities. Despite such generosity, many were left without the bare necessities: food, clothing, shelter.
In April 1990 — more than 25 months after the litigation began — the plaintiffs sought interim relief. Their argument was straightforward and potent. If the INS had properly interpreted IRCA’s “known to the government” requirement, these persons would have filed for legalization. If these persons had filed for legalization, they would have automatically been granted temporary work permits. The district court agreed and issued Supplemental Order XIV which required the INS to grant work authorization to aliens who had filed under Supplemental Order IX.
I. Mootness
This case is before us in a strange posture. We are asked to review the district court’s order of “interim relief” after that relief has come to an end. Supplemental Order XIV provided relief “pending a final disposition by the United States Supreme Court of Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, No. 89-1018.” Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 744 F.Supp. at 22.15 It is undisputed that such final disposition was granted February 25, 1991. Therefore, I believe the appropriate action is to dismiss the Ayuda II appeal as moot and to remand this matter to the district court to vacate the Order. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40 & n. 2, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106-07 & n. 2, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
I feel compelled, however, to make one further observation. This is the third time in three years that this litigation has been before this court and the litigation has lasted more than three times the length of the amnesty program itself. While I admire the tenacity of counsel for both sides, I suspect that this litigation might, sadly, itself become moot of “natural causes”: with no means for support and little hope of legalization, the thousands of aliens who pressed their claims may be forced to leave *773the country, their rights unadjudicated, their status determined not by law but by necessity.
II. Abuse of Discretion
Even if I were to reach the merits of the district court’s Order, I believe that it cannot reasonably be said that that court abused its discretion in ordering interim relief.
The factors the district court considers are familiar: (1) the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs absent interim relief; (3) the possibility that the relief will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) the public interest. Ambach v. Bell, 686 F.2d 974, 979 (D.C.Cir.1982).
The government and the majority rely most heavily on the first of these factors. The majority emphasizes 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f)(2), which provides that:
No denial of adjustment of status under this section based on a late filing of an application for such adjustment may be reviewed by a court of the United States....
The majority, however, jumps the gun. The district court was not “reviewing” a “denial” of adjustment of status, it was merely preserving the status quo. This section would come into play — and the apprehensions of the majority be sound — only upon the occurrence of several events. First, the district court must direct the INS to consider the collected applications as constructively promptly filed (filed nunc pro tunc as suggested by the Special Masters). Second, a Legalization Office (“LO”) must refuse to do so and instead reject the applications as late filed. Third, the LAU must affirm that determination. Fourth, upon a collateral challenge to the LAU’s ruling, a federal court must interpret § 1255a(f)(2) as barring such nunc pro tunc filings. If and only if these events occur will the plaintiffs fail to succeed on the merits.
I do not agree with my colleagues that the probability of all four of the required events occurring is so high as to offer the plaintiffs only a minimal likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, I do not agree with my colleagues either that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the interim relief necessary to feed, clothe, and shelter the thousands of aliens and their families whose only request is a chance to have their legal claims heard.16
Conclusion
The AYUDA plaintiffs must truly know the meaning of having defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. My colleagues’ earlier decision denying jurisdiction over their claims was vacated by the Supreme Court and the case remanded for “reconsideration in light of” McNary. McNary was a plain-speaking interpretation by the Supreme Court that the provision we revisit today restricting judicial review did not apply to generalized challenges like theirs. *774McNary has, however, now been subjected to a revisionist interpretation in order to deny them relief on basically the same grounds as before. Three years of a dedicated trial judge's painstaking efforts to bring reason and justice to one of our most troubled national problems have been erased with the stroke of a pen.
I dissent from what I sincerely believe to be a wrong interpretation of the statute, compounded by an unnecessarily cramped interpretation of the Supreme Court’s efforts to implement it. The injury to rational principles of statutory interpretation and controlling precedent by today’s decision is surpassed only by the human suffering involved in turning away 6,000 applicants for amnesty without a hearing.

. Congress required the Attorney General to disseminate widely information about the legalization program and the requirements for obtaining adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(i). Congress also directed the Attorney General to name as qualified designated entities ("QDEs”) community organizations with whom the aliens had friendly relations to advise and assist aliens in the preparation of applications. Id. § 1255a(c)(2).

. This phrase is borrowed from Daniel Kanst-room, Judicial Review of Amnesty Denials, 25 Harv.C.R.-C.L.L.Rev. 53, 64 (1990).

. The majority’s comment that there is no evidence that "the five individual alien plaintiffs,” Majority opinion ("Maj. op.”) at 751, were turned away by the INS is irrelevant. The five individual aliens were parties to the original lawsuit challenging the INS’ interpretation of the term "Government” in 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(a)(2)(B) not to the § 265 intervention. Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 880 F.2d 1325, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1989), vacated and remanded, — U.S. -, 111 S.ct. 1068, 112 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1991). The § 265 intervenors were organizations that did allege that aliens they counseled had been advised not to file. Id. at 1328-29.
But beyond that, the majority admits that if low level INS officials had refused outright to accept legalization applications for filing, the district court could hear the suit. Maj. op. at 751. Even if the plaintiffs’ affidavits are read to allege active discouragement rather than outright refusal to accept, this is a subtle distinction indeed, and one undoubtedly lost on the illegal aliens involved, upon which to grant or deny jurisdiction to challenge the practice.

. My colleagues complain that neither the petitioners nor I delineate what kind of challenges are not covered by McNary under our interpretation. Maj. op. at 753. The short answer is that McNary says that any suit that might be prosecuted under general federal question jurisdiction in district court if § 210(e), or its counterpart here, see infra p. 764, did not exist may still be prosecuted so long as it is directed at a general policy and not an individualized determination:
[W]e hold that § 210(e) applies only to review of denials of individual SAW applications. Because respondents’ action does not seek review on the merits of a denial of a particular application, the District Court’s general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear this action remains unimpaired by § 210(e).
McNary, 111 S.Ct. at 897.

. The majority’s dismissal of the Court’s reading of this provision of the statute, Maj. op. at 748 n. 4, misses the point. Of course an appellate court can review for mistakes of law under an abuse of discretion standard. That is not the issue. Rather, the question is whether Congress intended by enacting this particular review provision to preclude ordinary federal question review under § 1331 in the case of challenges to the way in which the IRCA amnesty programs are being administered. The McNary Court answered that question in the negative. Abuse of discretion review, the Court found, suggests that Congress intended § 1160(e), and thus § 1255a(f), to govern primarily judicial review of the facts found in administrative adjudications of individual legalization applications.

. The majority’s assertion that permitting district court challenges to generalized INS policies would "undercut Congress’ carefully crafted scheme” for administering IRCA, Maj. op. at 749, 752 is thus off target. While such challenges might undercut administration of the Medicare Act, they affirmatively support the efficient administration of the IRCA legalization program.

. Cf. El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc. v. Executive Office of Immigration Review, 941 F.2d 950, 953 (9th Cir.1991) (recognizing the "distinction between jurisdiction to rule on the merits of an individual deportation order and jurisdiction to rule on an alleged pattern and practice of constitutional or statutory violations”); Jean v. Nelson, 111 F.2d 957, 980 (11th Cir.1984), aff'd on other grounds, 472 U.S. 846, 105 S.Ct. 2992, 86 L.Ed.2d 664 (1985) (finding district court jurisdiction to adjudicate "allegations of widespread abuse by immigration officials”).

. The Court also noted that "absent initiation of a deportation proceeding against an unsuccessful applicant [for legalization], judicial review of such individual determinations was completely foreclosed.” McNary, 111 S.Ct. at 893. *768Thus it is conceivable that a problematical ruling in legalization proceedings could escape review completely if the government chose not to initiate deportation in all such cases. The aliens involved, however, would lose all benefits of the Act since they would be denied work authorization, and in the words of the McNary Court, be “in an even worse position than [they were] in before the Reform Act was passed because lawful employment opportunities are no longer available to such persons.” Id. at 895.
"Despicable” or not, Maj. op. at 751, a case currently before this court demonstrates that government agencies have been known to avoid any nationally applicable test of their statutory interpretations by refusing to petition for Supreme Court review of adverse circuit court rulings in individual appeals at the same time they continue to apply the rejected interpretation not only in other circuits, but to other individuals’ claims in the same circuit. See, e.g., Brief of Petitioner-Appellant at 3-4, 15-16, Johnson v. United States R.R. Retirement Bd., Nos. 90-1243, 90-5380 (D.C.Cir. filed Aug. 12, 1991) (discussing non-acquiescence by Railroad Retirement Board); Brief of Respondent-Appellee at 19, Johnson (D.C.Cir. filed Sept. 12, 1991) (same); Appendix at 38, Johnson (D.C.Cir. filed Aug. 12, 1991) (dissenting opinion of Railroad Retirement Board member criticizing non-acquiescence by Railroad Retirement Board).
At any rate, the point of the caveat is that Congress would hardly have devised a scheme that left illegal aliens under such time constraints on legalization applications so much at the mercy of immigration officials’ discretion.

. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990), which the majority cites for the proposition that there is no "general right ... to challenge agency ... interpretation of regulations facially rather than on an as-applied, case-by-case basis,” Maj. op. at 750, is not to the contrary. In Lujan, plaintiffs mounted an attack on the administration of an entire program which consisted of approximately 1250 individual agency actions and determinations. Id. 110 S.Ct. at 3189. The Court rejected this attempt to seek “wholesale improvement” of a government program through the courts, but explicitly found that "[i]f there is in fact some specific order or regulation, applying some particular measure across-the-board ... it can of course be challenged under the APA by a person adversely affect-ed_" Id. at 3190 & n. 2 (emphasis in original).

. I have read my colleagues’ critique of my refutation to their argument that the plaintiffs’ challenge is not ripe for review. Insofar as I understand it, I find their reasoning circular, i.e., because the district court could never have jurisdiction, even if there were final agency action, it could do nothing to preserve that jurisdiction. Obviously, as hopefully the prior pages have established, the district court did have Article III" “case or controversy” jurisdiction which it could preserve until the agency had taken its final substantive cut on the matter.

.This first factor parallels and complements the Administrative Procedure Act’s general requirement that agency action be "final” prior to judicial review. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. As we have often noted, ripeness and finality “tend to converge in that both are meant to prevent premature judicial intervention in the administrative process.” Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 740 F.2d 21, 30 (D.C.Cir.1984).

. This inaction, of course, is fully understandable: until the district court vacated § 245a. 1(d), that regulation clearly precluded amnesty on the basis of failure to meet § 265 filing requirements.

. With regard to this latter fact it is important to recognize that the § 265 issue arose directly from the district court’s ruling that the INS’ "known to the government" regulation was invalid.

. The interim character of the district court’s action is also evident in its instruction that such *772filings be accepted without the statutorily required filing fee in order to prevent aliens from forfeiting the fee should Supplemental Order V be reversed on appeal. See 687 F.Supp. at 668.

. The Order does condition the interim relief as "pending ... further Order of this Court." 744 F.Supp. at 22. But that phrase, it seems to me, is simply the boilerplate language of interim relief: only the issuing court can vacate its own Order.

. I also dissent from the holding of the panel that plaintiffs’ appeal in Ayuda III is now moot. As summarized by the majority, Maj. op. at 759, plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of their motion to hold the government in contempt for denying the legalization applications of "A" and "G” non-immigrant visa holders. The government has moved that this appeal be dismissed on the alternative grounds that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear- plaintiffs’ motion and that the denial of plaintiffs’ motion was not an appealable final order.
I believe the district court had jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ motion so that the issue before us is whether the court’s order was appealable as a final order. In my view, the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion to hold the government in contempt was an appealable order. Even where the underlying litigation has not been concluded, civil contempt adjudications arising from permanent injunctions are considered post-judgment proceedings and may be immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 763 F.2d 49, 51 (2d Cir.1985); New York State Urban Dev. Corp. v. VSL Corp., 738 F.2d 61, 64 (2d Cir.1984). I would therefore deny the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal.
Along with my colleagues, however, Maj. op. at 759 n. 14, I too note that the dispute over the status of "A” and "G” nonimmigrant visa holders apparently revolves around the INS’ interpretation of a different aspect of § 1255a(a)(2) than the "known to the government” provision that was the basis of the trial court's orders in Ayuda I and Ayuda II.