Challenge of Trump policy ending program to unite Central American children with families to proceed

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge allowed a court challenge to go forward against a Trump administration policy ending a program reuniting children in Central America with their families in the U.S.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District found the decision to end the Obama-era Central American Minors, or CAM, program to violate the Administrative Procedure Act, echoing, albeit on different legal grounds, similar rulings on the DACA program protecting from deportation foreigners brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Created in 2014, the reunification program allows children from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras with parents in the U.S. to enter the country as refugees or, failing that, through an immigration benefit known as parole that is the focus of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit concerns approximately 2,700 beneficiaries of the program who were conditionally approved for parole but had not traveled to the United States.

The administration said it was ending the program as a result of a government review of the larger U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal 2018, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Beeler dismissed the remainder of the claims in the plaintiffs' lawsuit concerning the due process clause of the Constitution and equitable estoppel.

"When it mass-rescinded conditional approvals, [the U.S. Department of Homeland Security] failed to take into account and address the serious reliance interests of CAM Parole Program participants whom it had approved. Its mass rescission was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA," Beeler wrote in her decision Monday night. S.A. v. Trump, 18-CV03539 (N.D. Cal., filed June 13, 2018).

The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to an emailed request for comment by press time.

DOJ lawyers previously argued that the child plaintiffs outside the U.S. lack standing as does the nonprofit plaintiff CASA de Maryland. The government did not dispute that the parent plaintiffs already legally in the U.S. had standing based on their interests in being reunited with family members.

The decision means Beeler will next rule on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction stopping the end of the program.

Beeler noted in her order that while the administration's decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program had been stymied under the Administrative Procedure Act, the reasons were distinct from those in the current case and did not apply.

"Critically, [the U.S. Department of Homeland Security] did not claim it was rescinding the DACA program because it disagreed with DACA on policy grounds," as it did with the Central American Minors program, Beeler wrote. The administration argued the DACA program was legally unsound and was not a policy shift.

Beeler also said the case was not analogous to another ongoing procedures act challenge in the Northern District to the administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status for citizens of Sudan, Haiti, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, allowing them to stay in the U.S. until conditions in their home countries improved. Ramos v. Nielsen, 18-CV1554 (N.D. Cal., filed March 12, 2018).

The judge wrote that while the government explained why it was ending the Central American Minors program, it did not acknowledge that it was changing how it was evaluating Temporary Protected Status "and gave no explanation for the change."