Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump

Filing 163

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES (FRAP 28(j)) by Appellees Grannaz Amirjamshidi, Arab American Association of New York, John Doe #4, John Doe #5, John Does #1 & 3, HIAS, Inc., International Refugee Assistance Project, Mohamad Mashta, Middle East Studies Association of North America, Inc., Shapour Shirani, Yemeni-American Merchants Association and Fakhri Ziaolhagh in 17-2231. [1000213949]. [17-2231, 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240] Omar Jadwat [Entered: 12/22/2017 10:18 PM]

Download PDF
December 22, 2017 Patricia S. Connor Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex 1100 East Main Street, Suite 501 Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517 Re: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump Nos. 17-2231(L), 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240 (Consolidated) (en banc) Dear Ms. Connor: The en banc Court heard argument in these consolidated cases on December 8, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) and L.R. 28(e), the plaintiffs respectfully submit the opinion that the Ninth Circuit issued today in Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 17-17168, the parallel litigation challenging the same Presidential Proclamation, as supplemental authority. National Office 125 Broad Street, 18th floor New York NY 10014 (212) 222-2222 The Ninth Circuit’s per curiam opinion affirms, on statutory grounds, the district court’s preliminary injunction with regard to individuals with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. It rejects the various contentions regarding justiciability that the government advanced both in Hawai‘i and in this case. Slip Op. 14-25; IRAP Br. 14-19. On the merits, it holds that the Proclamation exceeds the President’s delegated authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act; fails to provide an adequate basis for its sweeping entry restrictions; and violates the statute’s prohibition of nationality discrimination in visa issuance. Slip Op. 26-61; IRAP Br. 22-41. And it finds that the remaining preliminary injunction factors justify issuance of the injunction for reasons equally applicable here. Slip Op. 61-66; IRAP Br. 55-57. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit’s decision fully supports affirmance in this case. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Omar C. Jadwat Counsel for Plaintiffs in Nos. 17-2231 & 17-2240 cc: All counsel via ECF

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?