The plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied by the federal court, he added.
Atkinson said the plaintiffs “have asserted a host of procedural and constitutional violations by DHS in promulgating the CW final rule. None of them have merit.”
He said DHS’s publication of the CW final rule 30 days before its effective date complied with the Administrative Procedure Act.
He also noted the outreach and response conducted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the CNMI following the publication of CW final rule on Sept. 7, 2011.
Atkinson said: “The relief sought in the brief in support of the motion for preliminary injunction is extraordinary,” referring to the 180-day relief on implementation of the provisions of the CNRA and U.S. Immigration Nationality Act, particularly on the application of broad grounds of inadmissibility and removability in the CNMI.
“What [the] plaintiffs seek goes far beyond preserving the status quo of pre-Nov. 27, 2011, and they have presented this court with no cognizable legal basis, evidence of irreparable harm stemming from the CW regulations, or demonstration that the balance of equities and the public interest tip in favor of the preliminary injunction they request. The court should deny the motion,” Atkinson stated.
He added that “grievances concerning pending and unresolved claims before the CNMI Department of Labor are outside the scope of this challenge to the provisions of the CW final rule.”
The CW final rule “furthers Congress’ goals of reducing exploitation of foreign workers through the ‘legitimate business’ requirement,” Atkinson argued.
