Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Emami v. Mayorkas
"Drawing all inferences and viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the Court finds that plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the waiver implementation guidance was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Plaintiffs have come forward with numerous waiver criteria -- such as for “undue burden,” “undue hardship,” “national interest,” and “national security,” Dkt. No. 197 at 5-7, 21-22 -- for which the government promulgated unduly narrow and restrictive limitations, and for which no rational explanations can be found in the administrative record, Dkt. No. 98-1. Consequently, summary judgment is granted in plaintiffs’ favor on the APA claims brought under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)."
[Hats off to Shabnam Lotfi, who writes: "We just got an order in our travel ban waiver suit that was filed 4 years ago. The judge granted our motion for summary judgment and said the government's waiver guidance was arbitrary and capricious. The judge ordered the parties to find a way to reconsider visas denied under the travel ban. It's not clear yet what this process will look like or who it will apply to. Huge shout out to Veronica Sustic for her incredible advocacy on this case. Huge shout out to Muslim Advocates and Perkins Coie who partnered with us on this suit (Emami v. Mayorkas). Huge shout out to NILC, Arnold Porter, IABA, and Advancing Justice - ALC for their hard work on the companion suit (Pars Equality Center v. Blinken)."]