throbber
USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`No. 21-5028
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (Washtech),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of an
`Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM BY AMICI CURIAE LANDMARK LEGAL
`FOUNDATION, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES,
`CONGRESSMAN PAUL GOSAR, CONGRESSMAN LOUIE GOHMERT,
`CONGRESSMAN MO BROOKS, CONGRESSMAN MADISON
`CAWTHORN, JOE KENT, PROGRAMMER’S GUILD, AMERICAN
`ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION, INC. AND U.S. TECH WORKERS IN
`SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
`
`
`
`
`
`JULIE AXELROD
`Center for Immigration Studies
`1629 K Street N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`Phone: (202) 466-8185
`
`
`Fax: (202) 466-8076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 12, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RICHARD P. HUTCHISON
`MICHAEL J. O’NEILL
`MATTHEW C. Forys
`Landmark Legal Foundation
`3100 Broadway, Suite 1210
`Kansas City, MO 64111
`(816) 931-5559
`pete.hutch@landmarklegal.org
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES
`PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 28(a)(1)
`
`Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), counsel certifies as follows:
`
`A. Parties and Amici. All parties and intervenors appearing in this Court
`
`appear in the Brief for Appellant.
`
`B. Ruling Under Review. An accurate reference to the order at issue
`
`appears in the Brief for Appellant
`
`C. Related Cases. An accurate statement about related cases appears in the
`
`Brief for Appellant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/_________________
`Richard P. Hutchison
`Michael J. O’Neill
`Matthew C. Forys
`Landmark Legal Foundation
`3100 Broadway, Suite 1210
`Kansas City, MO 64111
`(816) 931-5559
`pete.hutch@landmarklegal.org
`
`/s/____________________
`Julie Axelrod
`Center for Immigration Studies
`1629 K Street N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 466-8185
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED
`CASES PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 28(a)(1)……………………. ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………. v
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING CONSENT TO FILE AND
`SEPARATE BRIEFING ………………………………………………… viii
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT…………………………………. viii
`
`GLOSSARY ……………………………………………………………………. ix
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS……………………………………………. 1
`
`INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE……………………………………….. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………. 5
`
`ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………….. 9
`
`
`A. The clear meanings of “bona fide student” and “solely pursuing
`a course of study” forecloses Chevron deference……………………… 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The INA’s silence on whether DHS may establish new categories
`of aliens eligible for employment in the United States does not
`equate to an “ambiguity” and thus trigger Chevron deference……… 13
`
`C. The Court should not be compelled by Chevron to defer to DHS’s
`interpretation…………………………………………………………. 15
`
`D. Congress – not DHS – should make laws affecting the status of F-1
`students……………………………………………………………… 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD LENGTH AND
`
`
`TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS..……………………………… 22
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………………………. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, 852 F.3d 1078
`(D.C. Cir. 2017)………………………………………………… 14
`
`
`Baldwin v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 690 (2020)………………… 15, 16, 17
`
`City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)……………………… 13, 18
`
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council Inc, 467 U.S. 837
`
`(1984)………………………………………………………… *
`
`Dep’t of Transportation v. Association of Am. Railroads, 575 U.S
`
`43 (2015)………………………………………………………. 17
`
`Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016)…………17, 18
`
`La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986)……………….. 13, 18
`
`MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone and
`
`Telegraphy Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994)………………………….. 14, 15
`
`Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015)………………………….. 10, 11, 16
`
`Miller v. Christopher, 96 F.3d 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1996)………………… 7
`
`Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Assn v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545
`U.S. 967 (2005)………………………………………………… 16
`
`Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U.S. 92 (2015)……………….. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ry. Lab. Exec. Ass’n v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 29 F.3d 655
`(D.C. Cir. 1994)………………………………………………… 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984)………………………… 15
`
`Talk Am. Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tell. Co., 564 U.S. 50 (2011)……………. 18
`
`Util. Air Regul. Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014)…………………. 10
`
`Page
`
`Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security,
`
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21587 (D.D.C. 2021).………………… 6, 11
`
`U.S. Const. art. III, § 1…………………………………………………. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Constitutional Provisions
`
`
`
`Statutes and Regulations
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 U.S.C § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i)……………………………………………. 15
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)……………………………………………………… 7
`
`8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(5)(ii)…………………………………………………. 12
`
`8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(5)(vi)…………………………………………………. 7
`
`8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)…………………………………………………….. 12
`
`8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(A)………………………………………………… 12
`
`8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(B)………………………………………………… 12
`
`8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)…………………………………………………. 6
`
`8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(A)(3)…………………………………… 10, 12
`
`8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)…………………………………………… 6
`
`8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E)………………………………………… 7, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000,
`Pub. L. No. 106-313, § 102, 114 Stat. 1251 (2000)………………. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No 108-447,
`§ 421, 118 Stat. 2809, 3356 (2004)……………………………….. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
`Act, 1999, Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 411, 112 Stat. 2681,
`2681-642(1998)…………………………………………………….20
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`
`
`
`
`H.R. 3564 Fairness for High-Skilled Americans Act……………………. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING CONSENT TO FILE AND SEPARATE
`BREIFING
`
`All parties have consented to the filing of this brief.1 Landmark filed its
`
`
`
`notice of its intent to participate in this case as amicus curiae on April 19, 2021.
`
`Pursuant to Circuit Rule 29(d), Amici certify that a separate brief is
`
`necessary to provide the perspective of constitutional organizations that believe
`
`separation of powers is necessary to ensure preservation of liberty. A separate
`
`brief is necessary to provide the perspective of members of Congress who enact
`
`laws affecting alien workers. This brief also provides the perspective of
`
`individuals and trade organizations who are affected by the regulation in question.
`
`
`
`COPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`Under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and D.C. Cir. Rules 27(a)(4) and 28(a)(1)(A),
`
`Amici Curiae submit the following corporate disclosure statement:
`
`
`
` Amici Curiae are individuals, members of Congress or non-profit
`
`organizations. They have no parent corporations and do not issue stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard P. Hutchison
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici curiae, its members,
`or its counsel contributed money that was intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. See Fed. R.
`App. P. 29(c)(5).
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`AEA
`
`CIS
`
`DHS
`
`FICA
`
`INA
`
`Landmark
`
`OPT
`
`STEM
`
`Washtech
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`American Engineering Association
`
`Center for Immigration Studies
`
` U.S. Department of Homeland Security
`
`Federal Insurance Contribution Act
`
`Immigration Nationality Act
`
`Landmark Legal Foundation
`
`Post-completion Optional Practical Training
`
`Science/Technology/Engineering/ Mathematics
`
`Washington Alliance of Technology Workers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`Pertinent materials are contained in Appellant’s brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
`
`Landmark Legal Foundation (Landmark) is a national public interest law
`
`firm committed to preserving the principles of limited government, separation of
`
`powers, federalism, advancing an originalist approach to the Constitution, and
`
`defending individual rights and responsibilities.
`
`
`
`The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a 34-year-old, independent,
`
`nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that has been recognized by the
`
`Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt educational organization. The mission of
`
`CIS is to provide to immigration policymakers, the academic community, news
`
`media and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic,
`
`environmental, security and fiscal consequences of all kinds of international
`
`migration, temporary and permanent, legal and illegal. On more than 130
`
`occasions, CIS has been invited by Congressional Committees to provide expert
`
`testimony on a wide variety of immigration policy matters, including those
`
`pertaining to foreign worker programs.
`
`CIS has a continuing interest preventing the labor markets from being
`
`flooded with workers, displacing U.S. workers, needlessly loosening the labor
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`supply-demand equation, and lowering wages for legal, permanent U.S. residents,
`
`which the outcome of this case will influence.
`
`Congressman Paul A. Gosar represents Arizona’s fourth congressional
`
`district. Congressman Gosar is a constitutional conservative and the sponsor of
`
`H.R. 3564 Fairness for High-Skilled Americans Act which would eliminate the
`
`unauthorized Optional Practical Training (OPT) Program:
`
`Section 274A(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
`1324a) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(4)
`EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR ALIENS NO LONGER
`ENGAGED IN FULL-TIME STUDY IN THE UNITED STATES.—
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no alien present in the
`United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) may
`be provided employment authorization in the United States pursuant
`to the Optional Practical Training Program, or any such successor
`program, without an express Act of Congress authorizing such a
`program.”
`
`Congressmen Louie Gohmert, Mo Brooks and Madison Cawthorn represent
`
`Texas’s First Congressional district, Alabama’s Fifth Congressional district and
`
`North Carolina’s Eleventh Congressional district respectively. Congressmen
`
`Gohmert and Brooks are cosponsors of H.R. 3564. These individuals have an
`
`interest in asserting the proper process for work authorization for aliens, and a
`
`significant interest in protecting American workers, including his own constituents,
`
`and lawful permanent residents from employment discrimination, which has
`
`become rampant due to the uncapped expansion of the OPT Program. OPT
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`recipients and their employers are excused from paying payroll taxes, which
`
`incentivizes employers to discriminate against U.S. citizens when hiring.
`
`Joseph Kent is a candidate for Congress for Washington’s Third
`
`Congressional district. Mr. Kent believes the political leadership in this country
`
`shut down manufacturing and energy jobs with bad trade deals and environmental
`
`regulations, and when workers asked how they were supposed to support their
`
`families, politicians like President Obama told them to “learn to code.” And when
`
`they did learn new programming and IT skills, our globalist corporations bought
`
`and paid for politicians who opened the flood gates to foreign high-skill low-wage
`
`labor to take those jobs away. Mr. Kent believes that by illegally expanding the
`
`OPT program, DHS is complicit in driving down the wages of American tech
`
`workers and urges the courts to recognize this and to take action to end the Biden
`
`DHS’s betrayal of American tech workers.
`
`The Programmers Guild advances the interests of technical and professional
`
`workers in information technology (IT) fields. Members of the Programmers
`
`Guild have witnessed first-hand the impact of OPT and related temp worker visas
`
`on family, friends, and qualified US worker job applicants over the past two
`
`decades. The Programmers Guild has proposed reforms that would better protect
`
`US workers. OPT displaces new graduates from getting a good first job upon
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`graduation and provides a tool for employers to avoid hiring older workers for their
`
`entry-level positions.
`
`American Engineering Association (AEA) is dedicated to the enhancement
`
`of the engineering profession and U.S. engineering capabilities. AEA is a
`
`nonprofit association with members in virtually every high-tech center and
`
`industry in the United States. AEA members are from all engineering disciplines
`
`including aerospace, chemical, civil, computer, electrical and electronics,
`
`industrial, IT, mechanical, power and software to list a few. AEA is the only
`
`engineering association dedicated exclusively to professional needs and concerns
`
`of the U.S. Engineering Community.
`
`Founded in 2018, U.S. Tech Workers provides inspiration, leadership and
`
`resources to displaced tech workers every single day. Our goal is to combat the
`
`impacts of outsourcing American jobs. We do this by uncovering relevant facts
`
`related to what fuels the offshore pipeline of workers. Then we use this
`
`information to influence policy reform. We educate the general public and elected
`
`officials about how the continuous flow of workers from abroad impacts American
`
`jobs, the economy and national security. As well, we promote policies that favor
`
`investing in our country and our workforce.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 14 of 32
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`When agencies violate constitutional separation of powers principles, the
`
`judiciary should exercise their Article III authority by engaging in a substantive
`
`review of agency actions. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. Deference should be afforded
`
`only when congressional delegation of authority is clear and agency actions should
`
`be found improper when they exceed the authority conferred by Congress. Silence
`
`should not be interpreted as ambiguity and should not automatically trigger judicial
`
`deference.
`
`
`
`This case is about whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can
`
`circumvent the limits the Immigration Nationality Act (INA) places on alien
`
`workers by improperly interpreting the terms “bona fide student” and “solely
`
`pursuing a course of study” to establish and operate a program affecting hundreds
`
`of thousands of workers. Under the INA and to qualify as eligible to enter and
`
`remain in the country under the F-1 visa program, aliens must meet certain
`
`requirements. First the alien must have no intention of abandoning their home
`
`country. Next, the individual must be a “bona fide student” that is “qualified to
`
`pursue a full course of study.” And third, the individual must seek “to enter the
`
`United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such as course of
`
`study… …at an established college, university, seminary…” 8 U.S.C.
`
`§1101(a)(15)(F)(i).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`
`The statute does not define “bona fide student.” It does not define “solely
`
`pursuing a course of study.” Nor does it authorize DHS to create new categories of
`
`aliens who are eligible to work and remain in the United States. Whether DHS has
`
`the authority to unilaterally broaden theses terms meaning beyond what is
`
`reasonable to create new classes of legal aliens lies at the heart of this dispute. The
`
`lower court ruled that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat.
`
`Res. Def. Council Inc. obligates it to defer to DHS’s interpretation of these terms.
`
`It also concluded that Chevron required deference to DHS’s assertions of authority
`
`and therefore compelled it to allow DHS to operate a program that allows a new
`
`class of aliens to remain in the country. Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dept.
`
`of Homeland Sec., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21587, *34 (D.D.C. 2021).
`
`DHS considers aliens who have completed their studies at colleges and
`
`universities and participate in the Post-Completion Optional Practical Training
`
`program (“OPT Program”) as “bona fide students” who are “solely pursuing a
`
`course of study.” Under the OPT Program, individuals who have graduated from
`
`college or university with any type of degree can work for up to one year after
`
`graduation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10). Those aliens with degrees designated as
`
`STEM (science, technology, engineering, or math) are therefore authorized to
`
`remain in the United States for up to another 24 months (after they complete their
`
`studies). 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C). What’s more, aliens can also remain in
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 16 of 32
`
`
`the country while seeking employment or when waiting for their application for an
`
`H1-B visa to process. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E), 214.2(f)(5)(vi). All told,
`
`some of these individuals can remain in the United States for up to three years
`
`post-graduation.
`
`
`
`DHS’s OPT Program functions as an end run around clear limits Congress
`
`has set on the number of technology workers admissible through the H1-B visa
`
`program. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g). It creates a new class aliens who are eligible for
`
`employment within the United States. Congress has “plenary authority to
`
`prescribe rules for the admission and exclusion of aliens” and specifically sets the
`
`number of H1-B visa holders. Miller v. Christopher, 96 F.3d 1467, 1470 (D.C.
`
`Cir. 1996). In other words, Congress has spoken on the issue of numbers of these
`
`types of guestworkers allowed in the United States and Congress can determine
`
`who enters and remains in the country. DHS, an administrative agency with no
`
`political accountability, however, has managed to circumvent these limits through
`
`creative and improper interpretation of terminology from the section of the INA
`
`involving the F-1 visa program. DHS’s interpretation allows hundreds of
`
`thousands of aliens to remain in the country with no connection to a university or
`
`institute of higher learning. These aliens are no longer “bona fide students” nor are
`
`they “solely pursuing a course of study.” Yet they remain present because DHS
`
`has substituted its own policy preference for that of Congress.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 17 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Unilaterally expanding the number of individuals permitted to remain in the
`
`United States post-graduation and in contravention to the clear language of the
`
`statute, runs contrary to congressional intent. Congress has expressly set the
`
`number of guestworkers permitted in the United States. And DHS’s OPT program
`
`expands the number not by dozens or hundreds but by hundreds of thousands.
`
`Amicus Center for Immigration Studies, through Freedom of Information Act
`
`Requests, has estimated the approximate number of OPT holders at a given time to
`
`be as high as 300,000 in previous years. Congress has designated the classes of
`
`aliens who may enter and work in the United States and provided clear language as
`
`to who is to be permitted to remain in the country under the F-1 visa program.
`
`Furthermore, aliens who are eligible to work under other visa programs are
`
`not only regulated by DHS. INA requires that the hiring of a foreign worker will
`
`not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers comparably
`
`employed. The Department of Labor is the agency responsible for compliance with
`
`this part of the law, and it does so through regulations requiring that the wages
`
`offered to a foreign worker must be the prevailing wage rate for the occupational
`
`classification in the area of employment. The Department of Labor is unable to do
`
`this with OPT. Its problems in protecting American workers are even further
`
`exacerbated by the fact that the OPT program contains within it a subsidy to
`
`employers who hire OPT holders. The Internal Revenue Service does not collect
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 18 of 32
`
`
`any payroll taxes from OPT workers for “students.” Employers who do not
`
`therefore pay either the employee or the employer portion of the tax required by
`
`the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA), get a direct subsidy at the expense
`
`of the Social Security, Medicare, and Federal Unemployment Trust Funds. In
`
`addition, the Department of Commerce has no way of conducting background
`
`investigations as it must do under the law, for aliens hired for sensitive positions.
`
`By adopting an interpretation that is clearly at odds with the law, DHS has created
`
`a host of other problems for other agencies’ fulfillment of their own statutory
`
`obligations.
`
`DHS’s interpretation of operative terms in the INA, therefore, should not be
`
`entitled to deference under Chevron. Instead, the lower court should have
`
`undertaken an analysis of whether DHS’s actions are permissible, rejected DHS’s
`
`arguments and ruled the current operation of the OPT program (as it applies to
`
`individuals no longer enrolled or attending institutions of higher learning) conflicts
`
`with the law.
`
`
`
`Amici curiae, therefore, asks this Court to reverse the findings of the lower
`
`court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. The clear meanings of “bona fide student” and “solely pursuing a
`course of study” forecloses Chevron deference.
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 19 of 32
`
`
`DHS circumvents the clear numeric limitations placed on guestworkers by
`
`Congress through the H1-B visa program by using the F-1 visa programs as a
`
`supplement for guest workers. It does this by interpreting the clear statutory terms
`
`“bona fide student” and “solely pursuing a course of study” in the broadest
`
`possible sense. Under DHS’s interpretation, aliens who have graduated from
`
`college, are working, or are unemployed, are still considered students and are
`
`legally permitted to remain in the country. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214 (f)(10)(ii)(A)(3) & (E).
`
`In fact, they are no longer students nor are they “solely pursuing a course of
`
`study.”
`
`The clear meaning of these terms forecloses Chevron deference. Under the
`
`Chevron framework, a court first looks to whether the text of the operative statute
`
`is ambiguous. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43
`
`(1984). Courts are to uphold an agency’s “reasonable resolution of an ambiguity
`
`in a statute the agency administers.” Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 751(2015)
`
`(citing Chevron at 842-43). There are recognized limits to this deference as
`
`“agencies must operate within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.” Util. Air
`
`Regul. Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 321 (2014). Additionally, while “Chevron
`
`allows agencies to choose among competing reasonable interpretations of a statue;
`
`it does not license interpretative gerrymanders under which an agency keeps parts
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 20 of 32
`
`
`of a statutory context it likes while throwing away parts it does not.” Michigan v.
`
`EPA, 576 U.S. at 754.
`
`DHS argues and the lower court agreed that the lack of definition for the
`
`term “bona fide student” creates an ambiguity and therefore entitles DHS to
`
`deference under Chevron. The lower court finds, “[b]y failing to define this
`
`statutory language, Congress has not ‘directly addressed the precise question at
`
`issue,’ namely, ‘whether the scope of f-1 encompasses post-completion practical
`
`training related to the student’s field of study…” Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v.
`
`United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21587, *35 (internal
`
`citations omitted). According to the lower court, the lack of statutory definition
`
`created an ambiguity and therefore should triggered deference to DHS’s
`
`interpretation. Id. at *34.
`
`
`
`Thus, the lack of definition obligates a court to accept DHS’s definition that
`
`“bona fide student” means an individual no longer enrolled in college or a
`
`university. And it means that “solely for the course of study” means that
`
`individuals who are no longer engaged in a course of study can remain in the
`
`country.
`
`
`
`Despite findings by the lower court and DHS’s assertions, “bona fide
`
`student” and “solely pursuing a course of study” are not ambiguous terms. They
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 21 of 32
`
`
`are directly connected to a recitation of institutions where an alien is to pursue
`
`his/her course of studies at:
`
`an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high
`school, elementary school, or other academic institution or in an accredited
`language training program in the United States, particularly designated by
`him and approved by the Attorney General after consultation with the
`Secretary of Education, which institution or place of study shall have agreed
`to report to the Attorney General the termination of attendance of each
`nonimmigrant student…
`
`8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i). “Students” are therefore limited to those enrolled at an
`
`institution of higher learning. Once the individual is no longer enrolled, he or she
`
`stops being a “bona fide student” pursuing a “course of study.”
`
`
`
`Further, DHS’s own regulations define “full course of study.” 8 C.F.R. §
`
`214.2(f)(6). For undergraduates, it means “study at a college or university certified
`
`by a school official to consist of at least 12 semester or quarter hours of instruction
`
`per academic term…” 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(6)(B). For post-graduates, it means
`
`“study at a college or university, or undergraduate or postgraduate study at a
`
`conservatory or religious seminary, certified by a DSO [Designated School
`
`Official] as a full course of study.” 8 C.F.R. § 214(f)(6)(A).
`
`
`
`OPT takes place “after completion of the course of study…” 8 C.F.R. §§
`
`214.2(f)(10)(ii)(A)(3) & (f)(5)(ii). It cannot thus encompass aliens who are in the
`
`country “solely pursuing a course of study.”
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 22 of 32
`
`
`B. The INA’s silence on whether DHS may establish new categories of
`aliens eligible for employment in the United States does not equate to an
`“ambiguity” and thus trigger Chevron deference.
`
`
`
`The lower court appears to conclude that silence in the student visa statute
`
`on work creates an ambiguity that DHS may resolve with what it considers a
`
`“reasonable” regulation. Washtech, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *41-*43. Silence,
`
`according to the lower court, therefore, triggers step two of the Chevron analysis
`
`when a court will defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute provided that
`
`interpretation is “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron at
`
`843. The lower court, however, failed to determine whether Congress has first
`
`delegated authority to DHS to permit non-student aliens to engage in employment.
`
`Acting without such a delegation violates separation of power doctrines and should
`
`not be sanctioned by this Court.
`
`Before granting Chevron deference, a court must decide “whether Congress
`
`– the branch vested with lawmaking authority under the Constitution – has in fact
`
`delegated to the agency lawmaking power over the ambiguity at issue.” City of
`
`Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 317 (2013) (Roberts C.J., dissenting). Indeed, “an
`
`agency literally has no power to act… unless and until Congress confers power
`
`upon it.” Id. (quoting La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986)).
`
`And “[a] court should not defer to an agency until the court decides, on its own,
`
`that the agency is entitled to deference.” City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 23 of 32
`
`
`312(2013) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). Thus, “[a]n agency cannot exercise
`
`interpretive authority until it has it; the question whether an agency enjoys that
`
`authority must be decided by a court, without deference to the agency.” Id.
`
`“Chevron step two is implicated any time a statute does not expressly negate
`
`the existence of a claimed administrative power… is both flatly unfaithful to the
`
`principles of administrative law… and refuted by precedent.” Ry. Lab. Exec. Ass’n
`
`v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 29 F.3d 655, 671 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Further, “[w]ere courts
`
`to presume a delegation of power absent an express withholding of such power,
`
`agencies would enjoy virtually limitless hegemony, a result plainly out of keeping
`
`with Chevron and quite likely with the Constitution as well.” Id. Finally, “as a
`
`matter of basic separation of powers and administrative law” an agency “may only
`
`take action that Congress has authorized.” Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC,
`
`852 F.3d 1078, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
`
`Silence should not be interpreted as ambiguity; such a principle allows
`
`agencies to legislate without an express delegation of authority from Congress. It
`
`compels courts to defer to agencies rather than using their Article III authority to
`
`interpret the law.
`
`In short, the lack of a delegation to establish new classes of alien workers
`
`does not entitle DHS to deference “beyond the meaning that the statute can bear[.]”
`
`MCI Telecommunications Corp. American Telephone and Telegraphy Co., 512
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1898410 Filed: 05/12/2021 Page 24 of 32
`
`
`U.S. 218, 229 (1994). And interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i) in a manner
`
`that gives it the power to authorize alien employment independent of Congress
`
`runs counter to the INA’s “primary purpose” of “restricting immigration to
`
`preserve jobs for American workers.” Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 893
`
`(1984).
`
`
`
`C. The Court should not be compelled by Chevron to defer to DHS’s
`interpretation.
`
`
`
`There are limits to an agency’s authority. And courts must take it upon
`
`themselves to determine whether an agency has exceeded that authority.
`
`Recently, several U.S. Supreme Court justices have questioned Chevron’s
`
`applicability. These opinions make clear that agencies should not longer receive
`
`the kind of reflexive deference they once enjoyed – particularly in matters
`
`involving so many individuals.
`
`Chevron “compels judges to abdicate the judicial power without
`
`co

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket