Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Nikolai Belov, Petitioner v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al.

Supreme Court briefSep 20, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

No.

PM-5TH

SEP 2 0 2024

ncFICE OF THE CLERK

In the

Supreme (koart af tl\t lEniteii States

NIKOLAI BELOV,

Petitioner,

EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, et al.,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Nikolai Belov

Petitioner Pro Se

Street Moskovskaya, 89/8

Apartment 127

Astrakhan, Astrakhan Region

414056

Russia

+7 968 078-90-68

belov.nikolai.nikolaevich@gmail.com

November 20,2024

120135

COUNSEL PRESS

(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

RECEIVED

NOV 2 2 2024

QUESTION PRESENTED

This case is a continuation of the federal government’s

illegal practice of exerting pressure on the U.S. judiciary,

which is an independent branch of powers (I think this

court felt the same pressure for itself when happened

offensive against its justices under the pretext of judicial

ethics reform).

I filed the same motion to intervene in this case as the

states, citing the same articles of law and court precedents

(they are the same for everyone), but with my own reasons

and arguments, which are completely different from the

arguments of the states.

Ninth Circuit denied my motion like previously the

states’ motion. But if the court considered the states’

motion for almost three months, obliging the parties

to submit their responses to this motion and giving the

opportunity to another 17 republican states to file their

amicus brief in support of this motion, then the court

considered my motion at cosmic speed in 2 business days

without analyzing it in any way in detail my arguments

from the motion, but only by writing on 1 piece of paper

a couple of words, while the text of the refusal to the

states consists of more than 10 pages, where the court

examines in detail all the arguments of the states and all

the counterarguments of the parties.

June 26, 2024 states filed their petition for a writ of

certiorari to this court, which was placed on the docket

June 28, 2024 as No. 23-1353 Kansas, et al. v. Alejandro

N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Paragraph 4 of the Supreme Court Rule 12 states:

“When two or more judgments are sought to be reviewed

on a writ of certiorari to the same court and involve

identical or closely related questions, a single petition for

a writ of certiorari covering all the judgments suffices”.

That’s why I filing my petition for a writ of certiorari in

docket for 23-1353 Kansas, et al. v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas,

Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

The question presented is:

Did the Ninth Circuit err when it consider and denied

my motion to intervene with sufficient interests in 2

business days without receiving before that responses

from the parties to my motion and without having

compared my arguments from the motion with parties’

arguments from the responses in its order.

Ill

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner is the Nikolai Belov.

Respondents (plaintiffs-appellees below) are East Bay

Sanctuary Covenant, Central American Resource Center,

Tahirih Justice Center, National Center for Lesbian

Rights, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, and American

Gateways. Respondents (defendants-appellants below)

are Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States;

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General; United States

Department of Justice; David Neal; Executive Office

for Immigration Review; Alejandro N. Mayorkas; U.S.

Department of Homeland Security; Ur M. Jaddou; United

States Citizenship and Immigration Services; and Troy

A. Miller; United States Customs and Border Protection.

STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et at. v. Biden, et

al., No. 18-cv-06810-JST (N.D. Cal.) (order granting the

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, issued July 25,

2023).

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. Biden, et al.,

No. 23-16032 (9th Cir.) (order granting motion to place

appeal in abeyance, issued February 21, 2024).

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. Biden, et al.,

No. 23-16032 (9th Cir.) (order denying motion to intervene,

issued June 24, 2024).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

111

STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS .... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF APPENDICES

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

vii

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

OPINION BELOW

,.l

JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

CONCLUSION

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Page,

APPENDIX A — ORDER OF THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT, FILED JUNE 24,2024 ..

Vll

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Alioto v. Town of Lisbon,

651 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011)

Auto. Workers v. Scofield,

382 U.S. 205 (1965)...

Kalbers v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

22 F.4th 816 (9th Cir. 2021)

Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,

168 F.3d 1039 (7th Cir. 1999).........

United States v. Alisal Water Corp.,

370 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2004).......

Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011).........

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)

Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Regulations

89 Fed. Reg. 6194

The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule,

88 Fed. Reg. 31314 (May 16,2023)..............

6,7

Cited Authorities

Page

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24

The Supreme Court Rule 12

Other Authorities

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Kansas, et at. v.

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland

Security, et al., No. 23-1353 (U.S. June 28,2024) .. .6

The Blue Lightning Initiative (BLI), led by the

U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S.

Customs and Border Protection, https://www.

dhs.gov/blue-campaign/blue-lightning-initiative... .7

The official website of the U.S. Customs and

Border Protection - CBP One™, https://

www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/

5, 7,8, 9,10,11,16

cbpone

My comment to the Rule “Circumvention of

Lawful Pathways” (comment ID USCIS-20220016-51963), posted June 12, 2023 on the official

government website www.regulations.gov,

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/

USCIS-2022-0016-51963.................................. 1, 6,7

The official websites of the Plaintiffs contain

long-outdated information about this case,

https://eastbaysanctuary.org/protect-asylum/----- 12

Cited Authorities

Page

The official website of the Ninth Circuit states

that “As of March 1, 202J>, we are no longer

providing a “cases of interest” page on

this site.”, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/.......

A Supporting Statement for Paperwork

Reduction Act Submission “Welcome Corps

Application U05-0256”, https://omb.report/icr/

202309-1405-003/doc/135744100.......................

The Secretary ofState has recently announced a visa

restriction policy to the U.S. southwest border,

https ://w ww. state. gov/new-vis a-r estrictionpolicy-for-transportation-operators-facilitatingirregular-migration-to-the-united-states/....

Global Entry Mobile App Now Available in

More Airports, https://www.cbp.gov/

newsroom/national-media-release/globalentry-mobile-app-now-available-more-airports

Introducing The Global Entry Mobile

Application, https://www.cbp.gov/travel/

trusted-traveler-programs/global-entry/

global-entry-mobile-application......................

Processesfor Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and

Venezuelans, https://www.uscis.gov/CHNV...

Statistics from the official website of the U.S.

Customs and Border Protection, https://www.

cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters.... 8,13

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Nikolai Belov respectfully petition for a writ of cer

tiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OPINION BELOW

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is reproduced at App.

la-2a.

JURISDICTION

The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on June 24,2024.

App. la-2a. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1254(1).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case is a lawsuit brought by human rights

activists against the federal government to dispute the

Rule “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways”, the main rule

for all U.S. immigration policy.

Human rights activists won in the district court and

July 25,2023 the district court overturned this rule. The

federal government filed an appeal and the Ninth Circuit

has been considering it for over a year now and is violating

its own order dated August 3,2023 to expedite this appeal.

Oral arguments took place only on November 7,2023,

but even after them the decision was not made by the

court, because the federal government is putting pressure

on the court to drag out this trial as much as possible,

because whatever the court’s decision, it will in any case

bring down the rating of the current president (now vice

president) before the elections.

On January 29,2024,1 wrote about this entire situation

to the Ninth Circuit and the court responded to me with

the clear implication that a decision would not be made

until November 5,2024. On February 1,2024,1 forwarded

this response to human rights activists as one of the

parties in this case, and a couple of days later (February

3 and February 4 were weekends)—on February 5,2024,

the parties filed a joint motion with the court to suspend

this proceeding in connection with “discussions” (which

may not actually exist) to change the disputed rule (as I

understand, the court, through me, made it clear to the

parties that it could no longer delay making a decision and

that it, the court, did not like this whole situation at all).

Therefore, the federal government colluded with

human rights activists under the pretext of “discussions”

in order to further delay this trial, and neither party

really cares about the fate of millions of asylum seekers,

including my fate as one of this millions of asylum seekers.

February 21, 2024 the court granted the parties’

motion for “discussions” and thereby saved itself from

further accusations of delaying the decision.

After this, May 7, 2024, five republican states,

pursuing their political interests, filed a motion with the

court to intervene in this court case in order to prevent

these “discussions” and, by becoming a party to this

case, insist on a court decision to collapse the rating of

the current president (now vice president). As expected,

May 22,2024 the court denied the states’ motion (June 26,

2024 states filed their petition for a writ of certiorari to

this court, which was placed on the docket June 28,2024

as No. 23-1353).

On June 20,2024,1 filed the same motion to intervene

as the states, citing the same articles of law and court

precedents (they are the same for everyone), but with

my own reasons and arguments, which are completely

different from the arguments of the states.

On June 21, 2024, the parties filed their second joint

report on the progress of the “discussions” to the court,

fully confirming my arguments with this report (because

in their second joint report like in their first joint report

parties do not indicate in any way what exactly happened

on these “discussions”, what concretely proposals to

change the contested rule were made by the human rights

activists, how the federal government responded to these

proposals, etc.).

And already on June 24, 2024, the court denied my

motion like previously the states’ motion.

But if the court considered the states’ motion for

almost three months, obliging the parties to submit their

responses to this motion and giving the opportunity to

another 17 republican states to file their amicus brief

in support of this motion, then the court considered

my motion at cosmic speed in 2 business days without

analyzing it in any way in detail my arguments from the

motion, but only by writing on 1 piece of paper a couple of

words “Belov did not fulfill this and Belov did not fulfill

that and therefore we denied,” while the text of the refusal

to the states consists of more than 10 pages, where the

court examines in detail all the arguments of the states

and all the counterarguments of the parties.

How the Ninth Circuit could consider and denied my

motion to intervene with sufficient interests in 2 business

days without receiving before that responses from the

parties to my motion and without having compared my

arguments from the motion with parties’ arguments from

the responses in its order?

Parties—not the court—are responsible for making

their own arguments. If the parties do not care about an

argument, enough to spend time litigating that argument,

then the court should not be expected to shoulder the

responsibility for them. If a party fails to respond to an

opponent’s arguments, the court itself should not answer

them for this party.

“Our system of justice is adversarial, and our judges

are busy people. If they are given plausible reasons for

dismissing a complaint, they are not going to do the

plaintiff’s research and try to discover whether there

might be something to say against the defendants’

reasoning.” Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 721

(7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kirksey v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco

Co., 168 F.3d 1039,1041 (7th Cir. 1999)).

But in this case, the parties did not give the court

anything at all to deny my motion to intervene, and the

court itself tried to say something against my’ reasoning

for the parties. Vice versa, in this case I presented to the

court a colorable arguments in my motion to intervene,

and the parties fails to respond to that motion, so the court

should have assume that the parties concedes my motion

should be granted.

I consider this attitude of the court towards my

motion as a clear violation of the law (in particular,

violation a guarantee that I have a fair trial from The

Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and further

evidence that the federal government is putting pressure

on the court (I think this court felt the same pressure for

itself when happened offensive against its justices under

the pretext of judicial ethics reform) and the parties are

dragging out this trial.

July 18, 2024 and July 19, 2024 I sent the letters to

the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary and to the

U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary about this whole

situation that has developed around this case in the Ninth

Circuit, but I didn’t receive any answers.

At the same time, unlike the states, I do not pursue

any political goals in this court case (I am the only one in

this court case who does not pursue any political goals),

I do not want to destroy the “discussions”, I want to take

part in them and propose to add all international airports

in the United States to the CBP One app as ports of

entry for all asylum seekers so that they fly directly to

the United States rather than to Mexico and not become

victims of cartels.

I also want to draw attention, within the framework

of this court case, to the problems for antiwar Russians

with access to asylum in Europe and the United States.

I was hoping to put all of these arguments into the

Ninth Circuit’s opinion and get some responses from the

parties to what I was proposing. But the court and the

parties, perfectly understanding this goal of mine, did

not do this (maybe they simply have nothing to answer or

object to this, because I wrote the truth).

This petition followed.

June 26, 2024 states filed their petition for a writ of

certiorari to this court, which was placed on the docket

June 28, 2024 as No. 23-1353 Kansas, et al. v. Alejandro

N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Paragraph 4 of the Supreme Court Rule 12 states:

“When two or more judgments are sought to be reviewed

on a writ of certiorari to the same court and involve

identical or closely related questions, a single petition for

a writ of certiorari covering all the judgments suffices.”

That’s why I filing my petition for a writ of certiorari in

docket for 23-1353 Kansas, et al. v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas,

Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

If the decision below stands, the federal government

will continue to putting pressure on the court and the

parties will continue to dragging out this trial under the

pretext of “discussions” and hide it from the public.

It will also mean that in the USA, as in Russia, there

is no democracy, separation of powers, independent

judiciary, freedom of speech, etc., because I have already

tried all the options and this court remains my last hope.

In particular, in my comment to the Rule

“Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” (comment ID

USCIS-2022-0016-51963), posted June 12, 2023 on

the official government website www.regulations.

gov, I indicated that the only way out of crisis on the

southwestern land border will be to remove all covid

and other restrictions that apply to asylum seeker air

passengers and add all international airports within the

United States to the CBP One app as ports of entry.

The above measures will allow all asylum seekers

from around the world to travel directly to the United

States by air through the CBP One app, without having to

travel through Central America, where they may become

victims of people smugglers and traffickers, or die in the

desert or on the high seas like in the time of Christopher

Columbus. But we are now living not in the 15th, but in

the 21st century!

In the 21st century, international passenger

air transportation is the most modern, safe and

government-controlled mode of transportation. This type

of transportation completely excludes smuggling and

human trafficking. The Blue Lightning Initiative (BLI)

has trained more than 350 000 international airport

employees in the United States to identify potential

smugglers and traffickers.

The port of entry (POE) is the place where you can

legally enter the country. International airports are

usually ports of entry, as are road and rail crossings at

land borders, as well as major seaports.

The disputed Rule provides that an asylum seeker can

schedule an appointment to cross at a port of entry with

the CPB One smartphone app. Id. §208.33(a)(2).

But according to the official website of the U.S.

Customs and Border Protection, using the CBP One app,

pre-planning the arrival of asylum seekers is only possible

at few land ports of entry below the southwestern border.

It is not possible to pre-schedule the arrival of asylum

seekers at any other ports of entry, including international

airports within the United States, using the CBP One app.

At the same time, May 29, 2024 U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (CBP) announced that the Global Entry

Mobile Application will be available to Trusted Traveler

Programs members flying into all 77 U.S. international

airports by the end of fiscal year 2024.

The Global Entry Mobile Application allows eligible

Trusted Travel Members to submit their travel document

and photo through a free, secure app on their smartphone

or other mobile device. The use of Global Entry Mobile

Application streamlines the traveler’s entry process into

the United States.

In the Global Entry Mobile Application the same

algorithms are used as in the CBP One app, so if is a

technical possibility for Trusted Travel Members to use

the Global Entry Mobile Application to fly into all 77

U.S. international airports, so is a technical possibility

for all asylum seekers to use the CBP One app to fly into

all 77 U.S. international airports (otherwise it will be

discrimination against all asylum seekers).

The above measures to ensure that thousands

of asylum seekers from around the world do not fly

into Mexico and become victims of cartels and human

traffickers, wandering the desert with their smartphones,

searching for a geolocation to sign up through CBP One

app at one of the eight land ports of entry on the southwest

border, but could, while in their home countries, sign up

through CBP One app to arrive at all 77 U.S. international

airports on commercial air flights by entering in CBP

One app information about the round-trip air tickets they

have booked, including return air tickets to their home

countries if they are refused asylum upon arrival (so that

asylum seekers themselves, not american taxpayers, pay

for their possible deportation and this fully takes into

account the interests not only of all american taxpayers,

but also all of asylum seekers, which will no longer be

forced to pay extortion-level prices for smugglers).

This approach will not only significantly reduce the

number of asylum seekers from around the world at the

southwest border, but will also significantly increase the

chances of asylum seekers from Latin American countries,

who lack access to air travel and must travel overland to

the U.S. border, to receive expedited access enrollment

through CBP One app at ports of entry on the southwest

border (and not wait 8 or 9 months like now) because the

total daily number of people attempting to enroll there

will be reduced by others enrolling at U.S. international

airports.

In addition, there are now more frequent cases when

the authorities of some states (usually republican), who

do not want to see asylum seekers, send them by bus or

domestic air flights to other states (usually democratic). As

a result, these asylum seekers, who have already endured

a lot of hardships on their way to the United States,

are subjected to even more stress and humiliation. The

above measures will allow such asylum seekers to arrive

immediately in those states whose authorities approve

the addition of international airports in their states to

the CBP One app for hosting asylum seekers who have

flown directly to the United States from other countries.

Simultaneously, the above measures fully take into

account the interests of each state individually, because it

is the authorities of each individual state that will decide

for themselves whether to add international airports in

their state to the CBP One app.

So, if the above measures (add all international

airports within the United States to the CBP One app

as ports of entry) fully take into account the interests

of all asylum seekers, all american taxpayers, all states,

etc., why the federal government is so resistant to these

measures and forces all asylum seekers to fly to Mexico

in order to get to the USA?

The answer to this question is very simple: because

all asylum seekers who fly to Mexico are automatically

subject to the “safe third country” rule in the disputed

Rule (IV. Third Countries) and must first apply for asylum

in Mexico, and only if denied, then in the USA (if they

prove in court that Mexico is an unsafe country, although

this is a well-known fact). Thus, the federal government

deliberately creates an additional barrier to all asylum

seekers in the USA.

For the same reasons, the federal government does not

want to implement the new parole program for anti-war

Russians, so that these anti-war Russians would create

problems for Putin while remaining in Russia, and the

federal government is not interested in what Putin will

do to these Russians (will put in prison, will torture, will

kill) for this (the same motives guide the leadership of the

European Union when it creates obstacles to the access of

anti-war Russians to receive asylum in Europe).

That’s why DHS, DO J and ACLU as the parties in this

case never responded to my above mentioned comment and

never responded to my letters (on February 8, 2024, on

April 3,2024 and on April 4,2024) proposing my changes

(add all international airports within the United States to

the CBP One app as ports of entry) to the disputed Rule.

The Supreme Court has pointed to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 24 as a “helpful analog[y]” for appellate

courts because it reflects the “policies underlying

intervention” in the district courts. See Int’l Union, United

Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v.

Scofield, 382 U.S. 205, 216 & n.10 (1965).

I acted quickly to bring my motion to intervene as

soon as I understood that DHS, DOJ and ACLU will never

answer me. See Kalbers v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 22 F.4th

816, 823 (9th Cir. 2021).

In this case Defendants repeatedly held that Plaintiffs

have no standing to challenge the Rule because the Rule

governs the right to asylum for certain noncitizens and the

plaintiff entities lack any “judicially cognizable interest”

in how the executive branch enforces immigration laws

against third parties.

In turn, as a foreign national seeking asylum in the

United States but unwilling to be kidnapped and killed by

human traffickers in Mexico, I have “judicially cognizable

interest” in the outcome of this case, but I have not been

asked to participate in any settlement discussions, like

and others millions of asylum seekers.

No information about the progress of this case has

been published in the press or covered in media news for

quite a long time (approximately since the fall of last year).

Even the official websites of the Plaintiffs themselves

contain long-outdated information about this case. In

addition, the official website of the Ninth Circuit states

that “As of March 1, 2024, we are no longer providing

a “cases of interest” page on this site.” Previously,

information about this case was published on this “cases

of interest” page, but now it is no longer available. Thus,

the public, including myself, lacks the ability to monitor

this case and respond to changes in this case in a timely

manner.

That’s why this court should find my motion to

intervene to be timely. See United States v. Alisal Water

Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004).

I did not intervene earlier because I believed that

my interests would be well represented in this litigation;

for a time, they were. Plaintiffs vigorously disputed the

Rule below. They won in the district court. But after that

Plaintiffs colluded with Defendants under the pretext of

“discussions” in order to further delay this trial to safe

the rating of the current president (now vice president)

before the elections. That’s why now my interests are

inadequately represented by the Plaintiffs in this case.

In the disputed Rule (IV. Belief that the rule will

increase smuggling or human trafficking) indicated that

' DHS recently created alternative means for asylum

seekers to travel to the United States by air through

CHNV parole procedures to allow asylum seekers to

travel directly to the United States without having to

travel through Central America, where they may become

victims of smugglers and human traffickers. However,

these CHNV parole procedures are only available for

asylum seekers from a few countries in the Western

Hemisphere (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela).

But migration to the United States from Eastern

Hemisphere countries increased dramatically during the

Title 42 period. According to statistics from the official

website of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for

the first six months of fiscal year 2023 compared to the

same period in fiscal year 2021, the number of meetings

with asylum seekers from Turkey increased by 10 599

percent (from 85 to 9 094); from Russia by 7 729 percent

(389 against 30 455); from China by 7 122 percent (from

92 to 6 644); and from India by 3 365 percent (from 502

to 17 392).

September 28, 2023, in a Supporting Statement for

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission “Welcome Corps

Application 1405-0256” (8. Document publication) in

response to my proposal for a new parole program for

anti-war Russian citizens, given their problems accessing

refugee protection outside of Russia, in particular Europe,

the U.S. Department of State notes that “we are unable

to implement USRAP in Russia at this time due to host

country government requirements and security concerns,”

and further notes that “the INA provides the Secretary of

Homeland Security with parole authority, which he can use

it at its own discretion,” therefore, the implementation of

the new parole program for anti-war Russians falls under

the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

January 12, 2024, I sent my letters about the new

parole program for anti-war Russians to the President

of the United States and to the Secretary of Homeland

Security by mail (I don’t know for sure what complex

bureaucratic path my letters went through after they

were received by the addressees, but as I understand it,

my letters ultimately ended up in USCIS).

After that I almost six months carried on meaningless

correspondence with USCIS Contact Center the following

content: “We referred your letters to the USCIS

Contact Center. The case number for your letters is case

#31478278. We understand your concerns and will give

you accurate information and guidance. The Special Cases

Unit has forwarded your letters to the appropriate office

for review.”, but never received a final answer from this

“appropriate office” about the possibility (or impossibility)

to implement the new parole program for anti-war

Russians, who physically located in Russia and seeking

asylum in the USA.

And this is not surprising, because in its latest official

documents (for example—a Rule “U.S. Citizenship

and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes

to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request

Requirements” on 01/31/2024 See 89 Fed. Reg. 6194),

DHS has already openly stated that new parole programs

are introduced solely on the basis of political interests and

therefore the likelihood of their application to the majority

of asylum seekers is zero.

. Moreover, February 21,2024, the Secretary of State

announced a visa restriction policy that targets owners,

executives, and senior officials of companies providing

transportation by land, sea, or charter air designed to the

U.S. southwest border, and thus deprived many asylum

seekers of the ability to use even the few land ports of

entry on the southwest border that are available through

CPB One app.

The above visa restrictions have been introduced under

the pretext of fight against transportation operations (first

of all—against charter air flights) that smugglers prey on

vulnerable asylum seekers from around the world, who

pay extortion-level prices to get to Mexico and then to

the United States.

If the federal government adds all international

airports within the United States to the CBP One app as

ports of entry, it will take control all of the above charter

air flights and fully eliminate this exploitative practice in

relation to all asylum seekers.

And moreover, August 9, 2024 DHS announced has

temporarily paused (under the pretext of a review of the

supporter application process) the issuance of Advance

Travel Authorizations (ATA) for new CHNV beneficiaries

(now DHS has resumed this processing).

In this case Defendants repeatedly held that the

federal government “has taken significant steps to

expand” lawful pathways, including increasing certain

country-specific opportunities for asylum seekers to obtain

advance travel authorization into the United States by air.

But, except CHNV, is no such expansion of these “lawful

pathways” for all other asylum seekers.

Thus, maintaining the disputed Rule in its current

form, without making the necessary changes to it in terms

of add all international airports within the United States

. to the CBP One app as ports of entry, will lead to the fact

that the interests of millions of asylum seekers, including

my interests as one of this millions of asylum seekers, will

be impaired.

Thus, the standard for intervention as of right is

permissive and should be “construe[d]... broadly in favor

of proposed intervenors.” See Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S.

Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this

lenient standard, my motion to intervene is timely, my

significantly protectable interests may be impaired by a

disposition of this case, and my interests are inadequately

represented by the Plaintiffs. Therefore this Court should

grant my petition for a writ of certiorari.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Nikolai Belov

Petitioner Pro Se

Street Moskovskaya, 89/8

Apartment 127

Astrakhan, Astrakhan Region

414056

Russia

+7 968 078-90-68

belov.nikolai.nikolaevich@gmail.com

November 20,2024

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.