Horne et al v. Edlow et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Michael Horne, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Joseph Edlow, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-01917-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiffs Michael Horne, his spouse Amanda Horne, and their two children are
citizens of Australia. (Doc. 1 at 2-3.) In 2025, plaintiffs were “selected for one of the few
visas available through the Diversity Visa program.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) But on December 19,
2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued a Policy Memorandum
purporting to “suspend[] processing of all applications for adjustment of status based on
the Diversity Visa program.” (Doc. 1 at 8.) “Diversity Visas must be used during the fiscal
year for which they are granted.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Based on that limitation, plaintiffs allege
that “[i]f USCIS does not change its policy and process their applications by September
30, 2026, plaintiffs will lose their chance to obtain permanent residence.” (Doc. 1 at 10.)
On March 20, 2026, plaintiffs filed their complaint asserting claims under the
Administrative Procedure Act. (Doc. 1.) The court issued its standard preliminary order on
March 31, 2026, and plaintiffs sent a copy of that order to the Acting Civil Chief for the
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona. (Doc. 6.) On April 7, 2026, plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiffs sent a copy of that motion to
Case 2:26-cv-01917-KML Document 12 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Acting Civil Chief. (Doc. 7-1.) On April 8, 2026, an Assistant United States Attorney
filed a notice of appearance on behalf of defendants. (Doc. 9.) Despite filing that notice of
appearance, defendants did not file an opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.
On April 27, 2026, the court issued an order explaining the opposition to the motion
for preliminary injunction was due April 21, 2026, but had not been filed. The court ordered
plaintiffs to file a proposed order identifying the exact relief they are seeking. (Doc. 10.)
Plaintiffs filed their proposed order on April 27, 2026. Because defense counsel had
appeared, she received copies of the court’s April 27 order and plaintiffs’ April 27 proposed
order through the electronic filing system. As of April 30, 2026, defense counsel still has
not opposed the motion for preliminary injunction.
Generally, a court analyzes a request for a preliminary injunction under two slightly-
different tests. First, a court must evaluate if there is a likelihood of success on the merits,
if there is a likelihood of irreparable harm, whether the balance of equities tips in plaintiff’s
favor, and whether an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2009). Second, a court must assess whether “serious
questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the
plaintiff’s favor” in addition to showing “a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the
injunction is in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,
1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under either test.
Beginning with likelihood of success or serious questions going to the merits,
plaintiffs argue USCIS’s suspension of the relevant program was “arbitrary and capricious”
under the APA. (Doc. 7 at 11.) “Under that standard, a court asks not whether it agrees
with the agency decision, but rather only whether the agency action was reasonable and
reasonably explained.” Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., Colorado, 605
U.S. 168, 180 (2025). Plaintiffs argue the action was neither reasonable nor reasonably
explained because the purported crime-prevention motivation makes little sense, “USCIS
did not consider any alternatives,” suspension of the program “does not effectuate the
purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and “USCIS did not consider reliance
Case 2:26-cv-01917-KML Document 12 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interests.” (Doc. 7 at 11-13.) Having considered the facts and legal arguments plaintiffs
make in support of these contentions, and without facts or legal arguments to the contrary
from defendants, plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits or, at the very
least, serious questions going to the merits regarding their “arbitrary and capricious” claim
under the APA.
Plaintiffs next argue they face irreparable harm because if their applications are not
processed by September 2026, they will lose their chance at permanent residence. Losing
permanent residence will undermine the viability of their business and risk family
separation. (Doc. 7 at 17-18.) Again without counter-arguments in a response from
defendants, the court finds plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of irreparable harm.
On the balance of equities and public interest, plaintiffs argue the public interest
will be served and defendants will not be harmed by requiring USCIS “to do its job by
processing plaintiffs’ applications.” (Doc. 7 at 19.) Defendants’ decision to not oppose the
motion again supports plaintiffs’ position.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Bond is not appropriate. It appears
granting preliminary injunction may provide all the relief plaintiffs seek in this suit. In
these circumstances, the court is inclined to consolidate the preliminary injunction with the
merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). The parties may file their positions regarding
consolidation. If defendants do not oppose consolidation, they need not file any statement.
In that situation, the court will proceed to entry of final judgment.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
Defendants are hereby enjoined from applying the Diversity Visa Suspension Policy to
plaintiffs. Defendants shall make all reasonable efforts to adjudicate plaintiffs’ applications
for adjustment of status and related benefits within 30 days of this order. If defendants are
unable to meet this deadline and believe the circumstances warrant an extension, the parties
shall file a joint status report within 30 days expressing their positions on an extension, and
the parties shall file joint status reports every 30 days thereafter until the applications are
adjudicated.
Case 2:26-cv-01917-KML Document 12 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiffs shall file proof of service of the summons
and complaint as soon as practicable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than May 15, 2026, the parties shall file
statements regarding consolidating the preliminary injunction with the merits. If
defendants do not file anything by that date, the court will proceed to entry of final
judgment.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01917-KML Document 12 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 4