H4 EAD Injunction Argument – Save Jobs Response DHS, Intervenors

As most of you know, there was so much of misinformation last week spread by media stating that DHS stance has changed and they do not plan to revoke H4 EAD, when DHS basically filed a response in Court stating the harm by H4 EAD is not extreme for injunction and their stance to revoke H4 EAD has not changed.  Now, last Friday May 8^th, 2020, Save Jobs USA filed document in court as their response to DHS and Intervenors countering their arguments and asking for injunction again. In this article, we will cover all those argument key points and share a copy of the actual court document for your reference.

If you are new and would like to know the entire history, read H4 EAD Lawsuit History, Latest Updates.

Background of Lawsuit in Introduction

In the court document introduction, Save Jobs basically outlines the lawsuit stating that the case is related to “Administrative Procedure Act(APA)” challenge to DHS regulation for H4 EAD as their members, who are American computer professionals, are harmed by H4 EAD. They say that their members were replaced by H1B workers. DHS exceeded their authority in giving H4 EAD and that is harming their members.

Also, they state that Intervenors(immigration voice) asked to put the case on hold (asked for stay) as DHS plans to revoke H4 EAD rule ultimately. In such situation when DHS revokes the H4 EAD rule, the lawsuit will have no meaning” ( legal term – moot). They say that Save Jobs continuously suffers harm from H4 EAD and is filing cross-motion asking for preliminary injunction (basically stop issuing H4 EAD and extending H4 EADs) during stay period (when lawsuit is on hold).

Save Jobs Arguments against Intervenors (Immigration Voice) for Injunction

• Inconsistent statements by Immigration Voice  : Save Jobs says that previously Immigration Voice said that they want court to put the case on hold (stay) because the lawsuit will have no meaning ( moot) as DHS ultimately plans to revoke H4 EAD. Now, in their recent response document to injunction order, they have said that injunction order to stop H4 EADs will impact their members and create strain on families. Both of these points by Immigration voice are inconsistent. If the H4 EAD is going away ultimately, how does this injunction order matter. Also, they should also share some proof of the harm, if this case is not put on hold ( stay)
  • In fact,  Intervenors (Immigration Voice) submitted affidavits from their members on H4 stating that injunction would harm them. See below from one of them.

• Save Jobs Members Harmed by H4 EAD : Immigration voice claims that there is no proof or logic to conclude that Save Jobs Members are still suffering from harm of H4 EAD. Save Jobs says that, in the past DC Circuit court disagreed to this statement and in general, courts use “basic economic logic” to conclude that allowing more competition will cause harm. Also, Save Jobs quotes another case reference arguing that their members are not suffering is not true.
• Save Jobs Not addressing Previous Issues : Save Jobs says that Immigration voice claimed that Save Jobs has not addressed previous concerns raised by this court and that was the reason for denial…Save Jobs says that this claim by immigration voice is incorrect and they have provided all those details in the original case and the argument briefs and there is no need to explain again on the same and their members face economic harm from H4 EAD holders entering the computer job market.
• Immigration Voice Claim of Delay in asking for injunction: Save Jobs says that immigration voice’s argument that there is delay by Save Jobs in seeking injunction is bizarre. There is no delay and Save Jobs is asking for injunction to stop H4 EADs as the circumstances of the case have changed. In fact, there is already a 5-year delay with the lawsuit, just to identify that Save Jobs USA has standing in the case. Now with the delays to keep the case on hold (stay) it will be futher delayed as there is no action by DHS to even publish rule for H4 EAD revoke.  Also, Save Jobs did not know that Immigration Voice would ask for hold on the case ( stay) when they filed the first documents with court. As Immigration voice has asked to put the case on hold ( stay), we are asking for injunction to stop H4 EADs.

Save Jobs Arguments against DHS  for Injunction

• DHS uses wrong standard for irreparable harm: Save Jobs says that DHS used the wrong argument for recoverable harm, and it is not relevant to this case. Save Jobs says that DHS also said in their argument that “economic loss is an irreparable harm”. Now, going by that DHS point, as Save Jobs members will not be compensated for the harm done to them at later point of time or during the course of the current lawsuit, the current harm to them is considered an irreparable harm. So, technically the injury/harm to Save Jobs members is irreparable harm and it qualifies for injunction. In general, there is no compensation given back for APA related cases after the judgement or during the case. 
• DHS claims harm to Save Jobs is not Serious harm : Save Jobs says that the point of asking for injunction to stop H4 EADs is to make sure that both the parties positions are held until the merits of the case are looked in detail.  The request from Save Jobs for preliminary injunction is to make sure the competition from H4 EAD holders will not increase during the time and does not harm Save Jobs members, when case is on hold ( stay).
• Merits of Case by Save Jobs : DHS says that Save Jobs did not provide enough arguments on their merits in case. This is not true as Save Jobs has already submitted 50 pages brief and there is no need to repeat the same again now.

Conclusion by Save Jobs

Save Jobs says that in general courts have given preliminary injunctions for categorical immigration related actions and this request also falls under the same as DHS has categorically granted work authorizations for non-employment visas.  They quote few examples of the past, where injunctions were given. Also, Save Jobs says that they are asking for an preliminary injunction to stop issuing h4 EADs, which is anyways eventually going to happen as per DHS and intervenors (Immigration voice).  They also say that as DHS has not made any commitments when the regulation to revoke H4 EAD would be coming out…it is in the best interest of the public to issue injunction to stop H4 EADs for protecting jobs of Americans. Below is the screenshot of the conclusion.

Overall, if you look at the above, Save Jobs has really given a strong counter argument for the points raised by DHS and Immigration Voice. Now, it is up to the court to decide, if the argument by Save Jobs meets the Injunction standards or not.

What do you think of the arguments by Save Jobs ? Will they get injunction to stop H4 EADs ? Share your thoughts as comments.

Official Court Document Submitted in Court by Save Jobs