Doyle Prosecutorial Discretion Memo Seemingly Hangs in the Balance

by Alan Lee, Esq.

Confusion now appears to be the watchword in the area of prosecutorial discretion. The focus is upon DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ prioritization memorandum of September 30, 2021, Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law, which sought to change immigration enforcement priorities from going after all undocumented immigrants to those who were threats to national security, public safety, and border security (those entering illegally on or after November 1, 2020). The guidelines were then followed by the Kerry Doyle memorandum on prosecutorial discretion on April 3, 2022, an attempt by DHS to significantly reduce the backlog of immigration court cases by empowering ICE chief counsels and their trial attorneys with the authority to dismiss or administratively close many cases of unlawful immigrants not barred by criminal acts, national, border, or public security questions, or certain types of immigration fraud.

Currently, there are conflicting decisions in the Fifth (Louisiana) and Sixth (Ohio) Courts of Appeals over the authority of the Biden Administration to prioritize classes of individuals for enforcement. In the Fifth Circuit, the court upheld a vacatur by the district court enjoining use of the earlier DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas memorandum upon which the Doyle memo arguably rests. Texas v. US, No. 22-40367 (5th Cir. 7/6/22). The Sixth Circuit had just the day before upheld the Administration’s ability to prioritize in State of Arizona v. Biden, No. 22-3272 (6th Cir. 7/5/22). The Administration is now moving before the Supreme Court on an emergency application to stay the vacatur citing the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

Whether the Court will agree with the Government is up in the air, but it would appear that there are at least two factors in favor of lifting the vacatur – the Court has spoken unfavorably on the use of wide-ranging injunctions by a district court as recently as June in Garland v. Aleman-Gonzalez, 20-322 (S.Ct. 6/13/22) (which the Fifth Circuit dubiously distinguished saying that the district court judge here issued a vacatur which only reestablished the status quo), and recently gave the Administration a victory on the use of discretion in the enforcement of immigration laws at the border by striking down the Trump implemented Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) which forced migrants to remain in Mexico during the time that their asylum applications were being decided. Biden v. Texas,  No. 21-954 (S.Ct.6/30/22).

In the meantime, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is recommending that requests for prosecutorial discretion refrain from citing or relying on either Mayorkas or Doyle memo in any way as long as the vacatur is in effect. The ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) has noted the vacatur on its website and posted a notice that “Accordingly, until further notice, ICE will not apply or rely upon the Mayorkas Memorandum in any manner.”

About The Author

Alan Lee, Esq. is an exclusive practitioner of immigration law based in New York City with an AV preeminent rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for 20+ years, registered in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, on the New York Super Lawyers list (2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-2021), and recognized as a New York Area Top Rated Lawyer. He has written extensively on immigration over the past years for Interpreter Releases, Immigration Daily, and the ethnic newspapers, World Journal, Sing Tao, Epoch Times, Pakistan Calling, Muhasba and OCS; testified as an expert on immigration in civil court proceedings; and is a regular contributor to Martindale-Hubbell’s Ask-a-Lawyer program. His article, "The Bush Temporary Worker Proposal and Comparative Pending Legislation: an Analysis" was Interpreter Releases' cover display article at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in 2004; his 2004 case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Firstland International v. INS, successfully challenged Legacy INS' policy of over 40 years of revoking approved immigrant visa petitions under a nebulous standard of proof, although its central holding that the government had to notify approved immigrant petition holders of the revocation prior to the their departure to the U. S. for the petition to be able to be revoked was short-lived as it was specifically targeted in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (which in response changed the language of the revocation statute itself). Yet Firstland lives on as precedent that the government must comply with nondiscretionary duties established in law, and such failure is reviewable in federal courts. His 2015 case, Matter of Leacheng International, Inc., with the Administrative Appeals Office of USCIS (AAO) set nation-wide standards on the definition of “doing business” for multinational executives and managers to gain immigration benefits.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.