Doe v. Kristi L. Noem
John Doe v. Kristi L. Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security; Marco A. Rubio, Secretary of State; and Joseph B. Edlow, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- John Tunheim
- 0:22-cv-03142
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In John Doe v. Kristi L. Noem, Judge Tunheim denied the government's motion for judgment on the pleadings, allowing a U.S. citizen's lawsuit to continue against immigration officials who he claims denied his 27 Afghan family members' humanitarian parole applications using identical form letters without the individual case-by-case review required by federal law.
U.S. citizens who have filed humanitarian parole applications with USCIS on behalf of foreign national family members, particularly those with family members in Afghanistan seeking to enter the United States; also potentially relevant to immigration advocacy organizations and practitioners challenging USCIS parole denials under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What happened
In John Doe v. Kristi L. Noem, a U.S. citizen originally from Afghanistan — proceeding under a pseudonym to protect his identity — sued the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), claiming the agency violated federal law by denying humanitarian parole applications for all 27 of his family members still in Afghanistan. The plaintiff's family members, who have faced Taliban persecution including violence and death threats because of their ties to the United States, had their parole applications denied twice — first in 2022 and again after USCIS reopened the applications during a court-ordered pause in litigation. Both times, USCIS sent identical form letters with no individualized explanation for any of the 27 denials.
The government moved for judgment on the pleadings — a procedural step asking the court to rule in the government's favor based solely on the documents filed, without further proceedings. The government raised three arguments: (1) a legal doctrine called consular nonreviewability, which generally shields immigration officials' visa and entry decisions from court review, bars the lawsuit; (2) the plaintiff failed to adequately describe a legal violation; and (3) a recent federal law, the Laken Riley Act, which gave state attorneys general the power to sue over improper parole grants, eliminated any private individual's right to bring this kind of lawsuit.
Judge Tunheim denied the government's motion on all three grounds. The court held that consular nonreviewability does not apply here because the lawsuit asks only whether USCIS followed the legal requirement to review each application individually — a non-discretionary legal question — not whether the court should override the agency's ultimate judgment calls. The court also found the plaintiff sufficiently alleged an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violation by pointing to the 27 identical denial letters as evidence USCIS did not conduct individualized reviews as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). Finally, Judge Tunheim rejected the argument that the Laken Riley Act eliminated private lawsuits, concluding that law only added a new right for states and did not take away existing rights for individuals. The case will now proceed.
The detailed version
- John Doe v. Kristi L. Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security; Marco A. Rubio, Secretary of State; and Joseph B. Edlow, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Civil No. 22-3142 (JRT/DJF)
- John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge
- December 30, 2025
Background and Facts
The plaintiff, a U.S. citizen originally from Afghanistan proceeding under a pseudonym, fled Afghanistan after becoming a Taliban target due to his participation in a U.S.-sponsored exchange program and his creation of an online video criticizing the Taliban. He was granted asylum in the United States in 2017, lawful permanent residence in 2022, and citizenship in 2023. His family members remaining in Afghanistan and Pakistan have faced severe Taliban persecution — including a father who was shot and hanged, and a brother who had his ear nailed to a wall — due to their ties to U.S. forces and their identities as Shi'a Muslims and members of the Hazara ethnic minority.
Following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, the plaintiff filed humanitarian parole applications with USCIS for each of his 27 family members. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), the Secretary of Homeland Security may parole a foreign national into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, but only on a case-by-case basis. USCIS's internal policies further require officers to evaluate applications individually, considering the totality of the circumstances, and to issue Requests for Evidence (RFEs) rather than outright denials when additional evidence could cure any deficiencies.
USCIS denied all 27 applications in 2022 using identical form letters. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit shortly thereafter. The parties agreed to stays in 2023 and 2024 to pursue an administrative resolution; during that time USCIS reopened the applications and issued RFEs for 26 of the 27 family members. After the plaintiff submitted the requested evidence, USCIS again denied all 27 applications — including the one for which no RFE had been issued — with identical boilerplate letters stating only that 'parole is not warranted,' with no individualized findings or explanations.
Procedural History
In a prior ruling on March 11, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the government's motions to dismiss. The Secretary of State was dismissed for lack of standing (the plaintiff failed to allege that his injury was caused by the Secretary of State). The first round of USCIS denials was dismissed as moot. The claims against the USCIS Director and Secretary of Homeland Security based on the second round of denials survived. Before the current motion was filed, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his procedural due process claim (Count II), leaving only the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim (Count I).
The remaining defendants — the USCIS Director and Secretary of Homeland Security — moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The standard for such a motion mirrors the standard for a motion to dismiss: the court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor, asking whether the complaint contains sufficient facts to state a plausible legal claim.
Holding and Analysis
1. Consular Nonreviewability: The doctrine of consular nonreviewability generally shields consular officers' visa and entry decisions from judicial review. An exception exists when a denial burdens the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen, in which case courts examine whether the official offered a 'facially legitimate and bona fide reason' for the decision. The court had previously found the doctrine inapplicable on two grounds: (a) the plaintiff alleged a constitutional violation (no longer applicable after he dismissed the due process count), and (b) the court is not reviewing the ultimate discretionary denial but only the predicate, non-discretionary legal question of whether USCIS conducted its review on a case-by-case basis. The court held that the second rationale remained fully intact and independently sufficient: reviewing whether a legal requirement was followed is not the same as substituting judicial judgment for agency judgment on discretionary matters, and consular nonreviewability does not bar such review.
2. APA Claim: The APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and (C), prohibits agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or in excess of statutory authority. The court found the plaintiff adequately alleged an APA violation. The plaintiff pointed to: (a) the statutory requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) that parole be considered on a case-by-case basis; (b) USCIS's own internal policies requiring individualized review and the issuance of RFEs rather than denials when additional evidence could help; and (c) the 27 identical boilerplate denial letters that contained no individualized findings or explanations. The court acknowledged that use of boilerplate language does not automatically prove a failure to conduct individualized review, and that the issuance of RFEs supports an inference that some individualized review occurred. However, at the pleading stage, the court must draw inferences in the plaintiff's favor, and dismissal based on the RFEs would be premature — that issue is more appropriately resolved at summary judgment following discovery. The court also noted that the significantly lower parole approval rates for Afghans compared to nationals from other countries, such as Ukraine, further supports the plaintiff's allegations.
3. Private Cause of Action / Standing Under the Laken Riley Act: The Laken Riley Act, Pub. L. No. 119-1 (2025), added 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(C), which grants state attorneys general standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security for violations of the case-by-case requirement if those violations harm their states. Defendants argued this provision implicitly eliminated any individual's right to bring such a lawsuit — reasoning that if Congress wanted to authorize individual suits it would have done so. The court rejected this argument. The court read § 1182(d)(5)(C) as purely additive: it extends a new right to states but says nothing about eliminating existing rights held by individuals. Neither the text nor the legislative history of the Laken Riley Act suggests it was intended to foreclose private enforcement. The court therefore held the plaintiff has standing and a private cause of action to enforce § 1182(d)(5)(A).
Outcome
Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket No. 95] is DENIED. The APA claim against the USCIS Director and Secretary of Homeland Security based on the second round of parole denials proceeds to further litigation.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.