For years, USCIS has used the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP) to delay and deny applications for citizenship or green cards
WASHINGTON — The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled Friday that the federal government’s Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP) is “arbitrary and capricious,” and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
CARRP is a discriminatory policy that instructs immigration officers to label some people applying for immigration benefits – like green cards or citizenship – as “national security concerns.” According to CARRP, someone can be branded as a “national security concern” based on innocuous characteristics, like speaking another language or having an advanced technical degree. Once USCIS decides a person is a “national security concern,” it bends over backwards to find a way to reject their application for benefits. People in CARRP have to endure extended processing delays and much higher denial rates, which can tear apart their personal and professional lives.
“This decision makes clear that CARRP was a horribly flawed idea from the beginning,” said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It needlessly harms aspiring Americans, many of whom have homes, families, and careers here.”
In its decision, the court recognized that, despite years of litigation, the federal government has never pointed to any evidence explaining its decision to create CARRP. The court also found that, in designing CARRP, the federal government failed to consider whether it would be able to decide applications in CARRP within a reasonable amount of time, as the law requires. These failures make CARRP unlawful.
“Today’s order is a huge step forward in vindicating the rights of thousands of people with lawful status who are subjected to arbitrary and unlawful delays that wreak havoc on their lives,” said Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. “These delays —often for years—cause people to lose jobs and homes.”
The plaintiffs challenging CARRP also argued that the policy violates their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The court did not agree with those arguments, even as it concluded that CARRP violates the APA.
