Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 269 Filed 03/26/24 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOHAMMED ABDULAZIZ ABDUL )

MOHAMMED, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. 20-cv-01856 (APM)
v. )
)
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
)
CLAUDINE NGUM FONGONG, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. 20-cv-02128 (APM)
v. )
)
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
)
MORAA ANSATH KENNEDY, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. 20-cv-02639 (APM)
v. )
)
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to Vacate Stay

INTRODUCTION

In its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the court’s stay of its final orders, the

Defendants ask the Court to ignore the very real and ongoing harms that Plaintiffs are enduring,

the D.C. Court’s repeated signaling that this Court has jurisdiction to remedy the harm caused by

Defendants’ illegal policies, and the operational capacity of the Defendants to immediately

1
 Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 269 Filed 03/26/24 Page 2 of 5

commence processing and issuing DV-2020 visa applications. This Court should find that those

changes in circumstances warrant the lifting of its stay.

ARGUMENT

A. Defendants’ likelihood of success has decreased.

In their response, Defendants argue that the decision in Li “signals that the D.C. Circuit may

be skeptical of injunctive relief that would require the issuance of visas after the statutory

deadline.” But this is not so. The D.C. Circuit has repeatedly held the opposite. As this Court

correctly noted in its Opinion in this matter, the D.C. Circuit has held that relief where “[t]he

plaintiff files suit and the court grants some relief—but not the visa—before the” end of the fiscal

year, “after the selection FY has ended, the court might lawfully take steps to compel the

government to process the plaintiff’s application and issue her a diversity visa anyway.” Gomez v.

Biden, No. 20-cv-01419 (APM), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154921, at *78 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2021)

citing Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774, 780 (2019)). Further, the D.C. Court in the oral

arguments for the appeal of this matter held the government’s proposition that the Supreme Court

could never review an issue regarding the diversity visa given its timeline for review would be an

“extraordinary” result. See YouTube, The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, at 38

minutes 16 seconds available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HupkhJc7_fU. Given, the

D.C. Circuit has thrice signaled that it would retain jurisdiction to provide relief to diversity visa

applicants after the statutory deadline, this Court should lift its stay of its final orders.

B. Defendants now have the operational capacity to effectuate this Court’s final order.

Defendants argue that their finite resources continue to warrant this Court’s stay. But this

ignores the fact that the Defendants are now processing record number of visa applications. This

alone warrants a reconsideration of the Court’s stay particularly given the grave consequences the

2
 Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 269 Filed 03/26/24 Page 3 of 5

Courts stay has on the lives of the Plaintiffs. The arguments that Defendants assert that they should

remedy the harm their unlawful policies caused at their complete discretion. This, of course,

cannot be justice.

C. Defendants’ indifference to the consequences of this Court’s stay is misguided.

The Court’s stay contemplated an expedited appeal that would resolve a review of the Court’s

opinion with haste. Unfortunately, that has not occurred. Four years ago, the harm that Plaintiffs

are now experiencing was recognized by this very Court. See Gomez v. Trump, 485 F. Supp. 3d

145, 200 (D.D.C. 2020) citing Gomez PI Mem. ECF No. 53-11, 53-16, 53-19, 53-20, 53-21, 53-

25; Mohammed PI Mem., ECF Nos. 8-5-8-41; Fonjong TRO/PI Mem., ECF Nos. 7-5-7-24. Those

“severe emotional, economic, educational, and personal harms that [the plaintiffs] and their

families” are experiencing now are irreparable and, according to this Court’s opinion on the

legality of the Defendants’ action, should not occur. Weighing these real and ongoing harms the

Plaintiffs are now experiencing against the purported harms that the Government “may” incur, the

Court should vacate its stay of its final orders.

D. This Court has jurisdiction to vacate its stay.

Defendants’ description of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co. is misleading. 459 U.S.

56, 58 (1982). The Griggs Court recognized the general principle that an appeal “confers

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects

of the case involved in the appeal.” Id. at 58 (emphasis added). But this Court’s stay is not an

“aspect” involved in appeal. Thus, this Court maintains jurisdiction to vacate it. And even if this

Court vacates its stay, the Defendants are not without remedy. The Defendants can seek a stay at

the appellate court.

CONCLUSION

3
 Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 269 Filed 03/26/24 Page 4 of 5

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a stay of

this Court’s final orders.

Date: March 26, 2024

Brooklyn, New York

/s/ Rafael Urena

Rafael Urena
Phone: (703) 989-4424
Email: ru@urenaesq.com
Attorney for the Plaintiffs

URENA & ASSOCIATES

42 West St. Suite 136
Brooklyn, NY 11222

Curtis Morrison

Red Eagle Law, LC

5256 S. Mission Road, Suite 135
Bonsall, CA 92003
Ph: 714 661 3445
Email: curtis@redeaglelaw.com

4
 Case 1:20-cv-01419-APM Document 269 Filed 03/26/24 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 19, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing document with

the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by using the CM/ECF

system. Counsel in the case are registered CM/ECF users and service will be accomplished by the

CM/ECF system.

/s/ Rafael Urena

Rafael Urena