Filed Date: March 9, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about lawful U.S. immigrants in a Temporary Protected Status receiving their interim employment authorization from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
On March 9, 2023, three plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs brought their claims against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the Director and Deputy Director for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in their official capacity seeking certification of their class, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees under the Fifth Amendment (Due Process), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, and the Administrative Procedure Act (ACA), 5 U.S.C. § 706. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare that USCIS violated their statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights by denying employment authorization documents; set aside their policy and practice failing to provide employment authorization; compel the defendants to provide employment authorization; and enjoin the defendants from applying their policy and practice regarding employment authorization to the named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were represented by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. The case was assigned to Judge James Robart.
The complaint arose from the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) that Congress created as part of the INA of 1990. The INA permitted the DHS Secretary to designate a country for TPS if there was an ongoing conflict in the country, and where returning to the country would pose a threat to the individual; if there was an environmental disaster in the country and it could handle the return of its nationals; or there were extraordinary and temporary conditions in the country that prevented noncitizens from safely returning. After a country was designated for TPS, most nationals of that country who were present in the United States became eligible for TPS provided that, among other things, they were continuously present in the United States when the country was designated. Among the benefits of TPS eligibility was work authorization in the United States. Under the statutory provisions, USCIS was required to issue interim “temporary treatment” benefits, including work authorization, while the full approval process was ongoing. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants did not grant the interim benefits in the form of employment authorization, as required by statute, but instead only granted work authorization upon final approval of TPS application.
On August 2, 2023, the court issued an order on the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the court granted in part and denied in part. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to mootness or due to an existing authorization, and that the claims were time barred. The defendants also contended that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Due Process Clause; that their APA claims were facial, policy-based challenges; and that their declaratory judgment claims were duplicative of their APA claims. The court ultimately granted the defendants’ motion in part for one plaintiff whose TPS claim was approved and who had employment authorization. The court denied all other portions of the defendants’ motion.
On August 25, 2023, the court issued an order on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court granted certification to the class (estimated as up to 100,000 individuals by the plaintiffs) and defined it as individuals who have submitted or will submit an initial application establishing prima facie eligibility for TPS who have not received a final decision on their application, and who have not been issued employment authorization documentation incident to their pending application.
On November 12, 2024, both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. However, before the court heard arguments, the defendants filed a Notice of Administrative Action stating that they needed to pause their review on the sufficiency of their system in light of President Trump's Executive Orders (Exec. Order No. 14,161 and 14,159) concerning immigration. On February 18, 2025, the court directed that the cross motions for summary judgment be renoted for March 14, 2025, and ordered the defendant to file a status report regarding its review by the same date.
On March 14, 2025, the defendants filed a status report as requested. Their status report indicated that they were still reviewing their procedures in line with the Executive Orders and expect to be complete within the next 30 days. On March 17, 2025, the court ordered another status report by April 14, 2025 before it could move forward with the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Tucker Gribble (3/19/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66978738/parties/mansor-v-united-states-citizenship-and-immigration-services/
Robart, James L. (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66978738/mansor-v-united-states-citizenship-and-immigration-services/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 3:27 a.m.
State / Territory: Washington
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 9, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Persons eligible for TPS seeking temporary employment authorization
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
United States (Washington D.C., District of Columbia), Federal
United States (Washington D.C., District of Columbia), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: