CLINIC, et al. v. EOIR, et al.

Dramatically Increased Fees Deny Access to Justice


CLINIC, et al. v. EOIR, et al.


Briefs, Memos, and Orders Filed with/Issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (from latest to earliest):

  • Memorandum Opinion and Order (filed 1/18/21, PDF). “[T]he court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the effective date of the Final Rule or, in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction. The court holds that EOIR acted arbitrarily and capriciously by disregarding the Final Rule’s impact on legal service providers and their capacity to provide legal services to persons subject to removal proceedings. EOIR was obligated to address these concerns as part of the notice-and-comment process but it failed to do so. In short, EOIR ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.’ … The court also finds that, absent equitable relief, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor staying the effective date of a portion of the Final Rule.”
  • Complaint (filed 12/23/20, PDF). “Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Defendants from imposing prohibitive fees on individuals who are defending themselves against deportation from the United States. The fees would be mandated by a Final Rule issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review …, a sub-agency of the Department of Justice …, on December 18, 2020, at 85 Fed. Reg. 82,750 ….”