CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
EDMER EUDULIO BARRIOS GARCIA (21-1037); DOUBLAS ARGUIJO (21-1056); ARDILES YASDAMI MENDEZ MENDEZ and LIMNY ERIVELBA LOPEZ MAZARIEGOS (21-1063),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

SUDHABEN PANKAJKUMAR PATEL, PANKAJKUMAR ISHWARLAL PATEL, NIKIBEN PANKAJKUMAR PATEL, and SAHILKUMAR PANKAJKUMAR PATEL (21-5022),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TRACY RENAUD, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
   Nos. 21-1037/1056/1063








No. 21-5022
Case Nos. 21-1037, 21-1056, and 21-1063
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids; Nos. 1:20-cv-00457; 1:20-cv-00378; 1:20-cv00460—Phillip J. Green, Magistrate Judge.

Case No. 21-5022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London;
6:20-cv-00101—Karen K. Caldwell, District Judge.

Argued: July 21, 2021

Decided and Filed: September 13, 2021

Before: SILER, MOORE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Edmer Eudulio Barrios Garcia, Doublas Arguijo, Ardiles Yasdami Mendez Mendez, and Sudhaben Pankajkumar Patel are noncitizens. They were victims of grave crimes; they cooperated with law enforcement. They applied for U-visas and authorization to work; Mendez Mendez and Patel sought derivative U-visas and work authorization for some of their family members. These noncitizens have waited years for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—to adjudicate their applications. Plaintiffs have been and remain unable to obtain lawful employment, to visit their family members who live abroad, or to attain deferred-action status that would protect them from removal from this country. Plaintiffs sued USCIS and DHS, alleging that the agencies have unreasonably delayed placing the principal applicants on the U-visa waitlist and adjudicating Plaintiffs’ work-authorization applications. While this appeal pended, USCIS announced a new program for persons with pending U-visa applications known as the “Bona Fide Determination Process.” The parties contest whether this nascent program moots Plaintiffs’ claims.

We must decide whether this case is moot, whether the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows the federal courts to review Plaintiffs’ two claims, the scope of our review, and the claims’ sufficiency. We hold that the issuance of the Bona Fide Determination Process moots no part of this case. We further hold that 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and Nos. 21-1037/1056/1063/5022 Barrios Garcia et al. v. DHS et al. Page 3 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) do not prevent the federal courts from reviewing claims that USCIS has unreasonably delayed placing principal petitioners on the U-visa waitlist and adjudicating prewaitlist work-authorization applications. We hold that the federal courts may compel USCIS to place principal petitioners on the U-visa waitlist when an unreasonable delay has occurred per 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). We conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the Bona Fide Determination Process require USCIS to decide whether a U-visa application is “bona fide” before the agency can exercise its discretion and decide whether principal petitioners and their qualifying family members may receive Bona Fide Determination Employment Authorization Documents. We thus hold that 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) permits the federal courts to hasten an unduly delayed “bona fide” determination. But we also hold that § 706(1) does not allow the federal courts to force USCIS to adjudicate prewaitlist work-authorization applications.

To that end, we conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts that the principal petitioners’ delayed waitlist determinations have harmed Plaintiffs’ health and welfare; Plaintiffs’ waitlist claim should thus survive the Government’s motions to dismiss. Although we cannot review Plaintiffs’ work-authorization claim, the implementation of the Bona Fide Determination Process during this appeal compels us to conclude that Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaints should they wish to challenge any delayed “bona fide” determinations. We thus REVERSE and REMAND.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL KENNETH RICH (18-2268/2269); CAREY DALE VANDIVER (18-2323/2324); PATRICK MICHAEL MCKEOUN (18-2342); JEFF GARVIN SMITH (18- 2364/2365); DAVID RANDY DROZDOWSKI (18-2401); PAUL ANTHONY DARRAH (18-2407/2408); VINCENT JOHN WITORT (18-2410); VICTOR CARLOS CASTANO (19-1028/1029),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 18-2268/2269/2323/2324
/2342/2364 2365 2401/2407
/2408/2410/19-1028/1029
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;
Nos. 2:11-cr-20129 and 2:11-cr-20066—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.
Argued: April 28, 2021
Decided and Filed: September 13, 2021
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GRIFFIN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

In many respects, we have seen this case before. When a motorcycle club shifts gears from sharing a fraternal interest in Harley-Davidsons to peddling drugs through violent means, convictions and lengthy sentences under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) usually follow. See, e.g., United States v. Odum, 878 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Lawson, 535 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2008). These consolidated criminal appeals are no exception.

The federal government successfully prosecuted multiple members of the “Devils Diciples [sic] Motorcycle Club” (DDMC) for their role in a RICO enterprise that trafficked large quantities of drugs (namely methamphetamine) and engaged in numerous other illegal acts (like violent crimes, illicit gambling, thefts, and obstruction of justice). The district court imposed sentences that ranged from twenty-eight years to life in prison. Defendants have raised over seventy issues on appeal, none of which have merit. We affirm their convictions and sentences.