Class Certification Granted in CARRP Lawsuit: Wagafe v. Trump

Wagafe v. Trump, June 21, 2017 - "The common question here is whether CARRP is lawful. The answer is “yes” or “no.” The answer to this question will not change based on facts particular to each class member, because each class member’s application was (or will be) subjected to CARRP. ... [I]f adjudication of Plaintiffs’ applications is not happenstance, and Defendants are purposely and strategically adjudicating Plaintiffs’ applications as they are added as named Plaintiffs, such a blatant attempt to moot Plaintiffs’ claims will not gain purchase with this Court. If this is true, Defendants appear to be engaging in a strategy of picking off named Plaintiffs to insulate CARRP from meaningful judicial review. ... Plaintiffs allege that CARRP is unlawful and ask the Court to enjoin the Government from submitting putative class members’ immigration applications to CARRP. A single ruling would therefore provide relief to each member of the class. ... Having satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 49) is GRANTED. The Court approves of the two proposed classes, appoints the five named Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoints Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel for both classes. Because certification of anything less than a nationwide class would run counter to the constitutional imperative of “a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 4, class certification is nationwide."