Rule of Law

ASISTA Immigration Assistance v. Albence

Challenging a Trump Administration change in immigration policy that harms crime victims and law enforcement efforts, because the official who issued the new policy is serving unlawfully as the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the policy is therefore illegal.

Case Summary

Congress created the U‑nonimmigrant visa, or “U visa” to allow immigrant survivors of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault to remain in the United States if they help law enforcement investigate or prosecute those crimes. To prevent people from being deported before their U-visa applications are processed, Congress authorized the government to stay the deportation of individuals who have pending U-visa applications—a policy followed for years by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, in August 2019, the purported “Acting Director” of ICE, Matthew Albence, issued a directive that made significant changes to ICE’s policy regarding U-Visa applicants. While individuals applicants were previously granted a stay of deportation if they had filed a proper U-visa application and no “adverse conditions” existed, under the new directive, people who meet these standards are no longer protected from deportation, making them much more likely to be deported as they await a decision on their U-visa applications. As a result of this policy change, crime victims who have applied for U visas with the support of law enforcement are at greater risk of being deported before their applications are processed, even though they may ultimately be found entitled to receive a U visa and remain in the United States.

Along with co-counsel Protect Democracy, CAC sued Albence and other federal officials on behalf of two plaintiffs: ASISTA Immigration Assistance, a nonprofit organization that, among other things, trains and provides technical assistance to attorneys representing survivors of violence in immigration proceedings; and Sanctuary for Families, Inc., a nonprofit organization that, among other things, represents gender violence survivors in deportation proceedings and assists them in obtaining lawful immigration status. Our lawsuit alleges that Albence was illegally performing the role of “Acting Director” of ICE when he issued the new policy and therefore had no authority to issue the policy.

As our complaint explains, our nation’s Founders adopted the Constitution’s Appointments Clause to prevent abuses of executive power. The Clause requires that high-level federal officers be confirmed by the Senate after presidential nomination, and that all other officers be appointed in the same manner unless federal law provides otherwise. Here, federal law unequivocally requires that the ICE Director be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

While the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) permits acting officials to temporarily carry out the duties of certain offices, it imposes rigid constraints on the length of time during which a vacant office may be filled by acting officials. Based on the FVRA’s time limits, the office of ICE Director could not be filled by an acting official after August 1, 2019. Nonetheless, Albence continued purporting to be the Acting Director of ICE after that date, and he continued taking official actions under the authority of that office—including issuing ICE’s new policy on the deportation of U-visa applicants.

Because Albence issued the new policy without any legal authority to do so, his actions violated the Appointments Clause, the FVRA, and other federal statutes. Our lawsuit seeks a ruling that the new policy is therefore invalid.

In May 2020, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and briefing on those motions has been completed.

Case Timeline

  • February 13, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file complaint

    D. Conn. Complaint
  • April 10, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file amended complaint

    D. Conn. Am. Complaint
  • May 26, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file memorandum in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement

    D. Conn. SJ Memo
  • July 17, 2020

    CAC and Protect Democracy file reply memorandum in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment

    D. Conn. Reply Memo

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
August 10, 2020

OP-ED: What a 1924 case from Montana says about dismissing the Flynn prosecution

The Washington Post
As the full federal appeals court in D.C. considers whether to order dismissal of the...
By: Dayna Zolle
Rule of Law
August 7, 2020

Don McGahn can be subpoenaed by House Dems, federal appeals court rules

The Washington Times
The full federal appeals court in D.C. ruled Friday that House Democrats have the authority...
Rule of Law
August 7, 2020

RELEASE: McGahn Ruling: Victory for Congress’s Power to Investigate

WASHINGTON – On news that the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Rule of Law
July 30, 2020

#PurpleChairChat Episode 6: Supporting the Next Generation of Constitutional Progressives

CAC’s President Elizabeth Wydra, Doug Kendall Fellow Clare Riva, and our current interns discuss their...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Clare Riva, Simon Chin, Bardia Faghihvaseghi, Adaeze Eze, Jackson Skeen
Rule of Law
July 22, 2020

Trump’s Portland crackdown is controversial. The man spearheading it might be doing so illegally

The Washington Post
In Wednesday’s Washington Post, Nick Miroff and Matt Zapotosky dig into the Trump administration’s highly controversial —...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By Aaron Blake
Rule of Law
July 10, 2020

With wave of major rulings, Roberts and Supreme Court emerge as powerful counterweight to Trump and Congress

The Washington Post
“It speaks volumes about the current political moment that Chief Justice Roberts and the court...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Robert Barnes