Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to plaintiffs emerging motion for a preliminary injunction.
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and dismiss their Complaint.
1. Plaintiffs lack standing to sue
The cancellation of the flawed DV Lottery results did not violate or deny Plaintiffs any right, entitlement for legitimate legal interest.
a) Plaintiffs had no cognizable legal interest in DV. The requirements of Procedural Due Process, however, attach only to the deprivation of constitutionally protected liberty and property interests. Similarly, AOS for aliens already present in the U.S. is entirely discretionary. [...] The results were void ab initio. [...] no valid basis for assuming that they would receive visas. [...] Vander Molen v Stetson (“Actions by any agency of the executive branch in violation of its own regulations are illegal and void”) [...]
b) The claimed loss of time to process DV applications is merit-less [...] Plaintiff’s other claims for damages fare no better that the ones based on their erroneous sense of entitlement to an immigrant visa. [...] Plaintiffs have furthermore squandered the time that they claim they have lost by waiting 6 weeks from the cancellation of the DV Lottery results before moving for an injunction. [...]
c) Cancellation of the Lottery results had no impact on Plaintiff’s showing of immigrant intent. First, Plaintiffs have already demonstrated their intent to immigrate by submitting the Lottery petitions. [...]
2) Plaintiff’s claims are not ripe because no final agency action has occurred. [...]
3) Plaintiffs have shown bo basis for a preliminary injunction. [...]
2) Plaintiff’s mandamus claim fails because they have no entitlement to the DV Lottery results.
3) Plaintiffs APA claim fails because the State Department acted in accordance with the law in cancelling the DV Lottery [...] Plaintiff’s, however, overlook the second sentence of 22 CFR § 42.33(c). The clause defines random order.
c) An injunction ordering the validation of the flawed DV lottery results would require the State Department to violate the law and would defeat worldwide expectations contrary to the public interest. [...]
If the government can be estopped at all, it may not be estopped on the same terms as private litigant (Heckler v Cmty Health Services of Crawford Cnty, 1984). [...]
d) The balance of equities favors Defendants.