Moya v. United States Department of Homeland Security

19-1002-cv Moya v. United States Department of Homeland Security 1 United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit 3 4 August Term, 2019 5 6 (Argued: December 6, 2019 Decided: September 15, 2020) 7 8 Docket No. 19-1002-cv 9 _____________________________________ 10 11 DAYSI MOYA, OBDULIA RUIZ, YOUTH MINISTRIES FOR PEACE AND 12 JUSTICE, INC., 13 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 14 15 SOYA FRANCES DE DANDRADE, MARIA VASQUEZ, MARISOL OJEDA DE 16 NUNEZ, JUANA JIMENEZ, EDUVIGIS A. DEL ROSARIO, CHOU HANG, 17 MIGUELINA DE LA CRUZ, PROJECT CITIZENSHIP, INC., 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 21 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED 22 STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, CHAD WOLF, AS 23 ACTING SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 24 HOMELAND SECURITY, KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, AS ACTING DIRECTOR 25 OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 26 Defendants-Appellees. * 27 _____________________________________ 28 Before: 29 30 JACOBS, CARNEY, and PARK, Circuit Judges. 31 *Under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Chad Wolf is automatically substituted for Kevin McAleenan in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The Clerk is respectfully directed to amend the caption of this matter accordingly. 1 Daysi Moya, Obdulia Ruiz, and Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, Inc. 2 (“YMPJ”) appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Southern 3 District of New York (Castel, J.) dismissing their claims against the United States 4 Department of Homeland Security, the United States Citizenship and Immigration 5 Services, and their respective agency heads under the Immigration and 6 Nationality Act (“INA”), the Administrative Procedure Act, the Rehabilitation 7 Act, and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The district court held that: 8 (1) Moya and Ruiz failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, (2) the 9 Rehabilitation Act does not provide a cause of action against executive agencies 10 acting as regulators, and (3) although YMPJ had Article III standing to bring suit, 11 (4) YMPJ did not fall within the zone of interests of the INA or the Due Process 12 Clause. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s holdings on exhaustion, the 13 Rehabilitation Act, and zone of interests, and Defendants challenge the district 14 court’s determination on Article III standing. We find that the district court 15 correctly decided each of these issues and AFFIRM. 16 17 Judge Jacobs concurs in part and concurs in the judgment in a separate 18 opinion. 19 20 Judge Carney concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate opinion. 21 22 CHRISTOPHER LAMB, Bronx Legal Services, 23 Bronx, NY for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 24 25 ANTHONY J. SUN (Christopher Connolly, on 26 the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United 27 States Attorney for the Southern District of 28 New York, New York, NY. 29 30 PARK, Circuit Judge: 31 Plaintiffs Daysi Moya and Obdulia Ruiz applied to become naturalized 32 citizens of the United States. The government denied their requests for disability 33 exemptions from the civics and English testing requirements, and Moya and Ruiz ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals