Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 1 of 19 PageID 2344

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3851-N

ORDER
This Order addresses Defendant International Rescue Committee, Inc.’s (“IRC”)
motion to dismiss [42] and the Federal Defendants’1 motion to dismiss [74]. Because
Plaintiff Texas Health and Human Services Commission (the “Commission”) fails to state
a plausible claim for relief, the Court grants both motions.
I. THE DISPUTE OVER THE RESETTLEMENT OF SYRIAN REFUGEES
This case arises from the Commission’s requests for information regarding the
resettlement of Syrian refugees in Texas. The Commission contends that, on November 19,
2015, it asked the IRC to apprise it of any plans to resettle Syrian refugees in Texas. Pl.’s
Am. Compl. ¶ 13 [13]. In a phone call, the IRC informed the Commission that it planned to
1

The Federal Defendants are: the United States of America, the United States
Department of State (the “State Department”), John Kerry in his official capacity as
Secretary of State, the United States Department of Health & Human Services, Sylvia
Burwell in her official capacity as Secretary of Health & Human Services, the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”), and Robert Carey in his official capacity as Director of the
ORR.

ORDER – PAGE 1

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 2 of 19 PageID 2345

resettle six Syrian refugees in Dallas, Texas, on December 4, 2015. Id. at 14. The IRC
declined the Commission’s request for additional information concerning the refugees. Id.
The IRC represented that the State Department had not authorized the disclosure of this
information to the Commission. Id. ¶ 15. Acting on the IRC’s advice, the Commission
requested the information from the State Department. Id.
While awaiting the State Department’s response, the Commission and the IRC
exchanged a series of letters. Id. ¶¶ 16–17. The Commission notified the IRC that it may
terminate its funding or take legal action if the IRC failed to cooperate, and it asked the IRC
to temporarily halt resettlement of Syrian refugees in Texas. Id. In response, the IRC
reiterated its intent to maintain communication with the Commission, but declined to halt the
resettlement of Syrian refugees. Id.
On December 2, 2015, the Commission brought claims against the Federal Defendants
for declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02,
alleging that their actions violated the Refugee Act of 1980 (the “Refugee Act”), 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1521–24. See Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 18–20 [1]. The Commission also brought a claim against
the IRC for breach of contract. See id. ¶¶ 21–30. The Commission sought a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction to suspend the resettlement of Syrian refugees
in Texas. Id. at 9. On December 4, 2015, the Commission withdrew its application for a
temporary restraining order. See Pl.’s Notice of Withdrawal [10]. On December 7, 2015,
the Commission filed an Amended Complaint, asserting an additional claim against the
Federal Defendants for declaratory judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

ORDER – PAGE 2

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 3 of 19 PageID 2346

U.S.C. § 706. See Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19–39. The Commission amended its application for
a preliminary injunction the next day. See Am. Appl. for Prelim. Inj. [17].
Then, on December 9, 2015, the Commission reasserted its request for a temporary
restraining order. See Pl.’s Appl. for TRO [18]. The Court denied the application for a
temporary restraining order after determining that the Commission had failed to demonstrate
a substantial threat of immediate injury. See Order 1–2, Dec. 9, 2015 [19]. On February 8,
2016, the Court denied the Commission’s amended application for preliminary injunction.
See Order, Feb. 8, 2016 [70] (“Preliminary Injunction Order”). In the Order, the Court once
again concluded that the Commission had failed to demonstrate a substantial threat of
immediate injury. See id. at 2–6. The Court also found that the Commission was unlikely
to succeed on the merits of its claim for declaratory judgment against the Federal Defendants
because it lacked a cause of action. See id. at 6–10.
The Federal Defendants and the IRC now move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Commission opposes the motions. The Commission does
not request leave to amend in the alternative.
II. THE RULE 12(B)(6) STANDARD
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must determine whether
the plaintiff has asserted a legally sufficient claim for relief. Blackburn v. City of Marshall,
42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). A viable complaint must include “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). To meet this “facial plausibility” standard, a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content

ORDER – PAGE 3

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 4 of 19 PageID 2347

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A court generally accepts
well-pleaded facts as true and construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2012). But a court does not
accept as true “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.”
Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff must provide “more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint
are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. (internal citations omitted).
In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court generally limits its review to the face of
the pleadings, accepting as true all well-pleaded facts and viewing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. See Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999).
However, a court may also consider documents outside of the pleadings if they fall within
certain limited categories. First, “[a] court is permitted . . . to rely on ‘documents
incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial
notice.’” Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)). Second, “[a] written
document that is attached to a complaint as an exhibit is considered part of the complaint and
may be considered in a 12(b)(6) dismissal proceeding.” Ferrer, 484 F.3d at 780. Third, a
“court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss that ‘are referred to in the

ORDER – PAGE 4

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 5 of 19 PageID 2348

plaintiff’s complaint and are central to the plaintiff’s claim.’” Sullivan v. Leor Energy, LLC,
600 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Scanlan v. Tex. A & M Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536
(5th Cir. 2003)). Finally, “[i]n deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may
permissibly refer to matters of public record.” Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 n.6 (5th
Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th
Cir. 2011) (stating, in upholding district court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), that “the
district court took appropriate judicial notice of publicly-available documents and transcripts
produced by the [Food and Drug Administration], which were matters of public record
directly relevant to the issue at hand”).
III. THE COURT GRANTS THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
The Commission asserts two claims against the Federal Defendants. Count I is a
claim for declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02,
that the Federal Defendants’ failure to consult in advance with the Commission violates the
Refugee Act. Count II is a claim for declaratory judgment under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, that the Federal Defendants’ failure to consult constitutes
unlawful agency action. The Federal Defendants move to dismiss both claims, arguing that
the Commission lacks a cause of action to compel advance consultation and that the Refugee
Act does not require the Federal Defendants to provide the Commission with particularized
information about individual refugees.
The Court determines that the Commission lacks a cause of action to enforce the
Refugee Act’s advance consultation requirement. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion

ORDER – PAGE 5

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 6 of 19 PageID 2349

and dismisses Counts I and II against the Federal Defendants. Finding no valid cause of
action to support judicial review, the Court does not reach the issue of whether the
Commission has stated a plausible violation of the Refugee Act.
A. The Refugee Act Does Not Provide a Cause of Action
The Court previously determined that the Refugee Act does not confer a private right
of action for the States to enforce its provisions. See Prelim. Inj. Order at 7–9. The
Commission’s initial contention was that 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(A), which requires the
Federal Defendants to “consult regularly” with the States regarding their administration of
the resettlement program, conferred a private right of action to enforce its provisions. Now,
the Commission further contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(D), which requires the Federal
Defendants to “take into account” States’ recommendations regarding the placement of
refugees within a state, confers a right of action as well. See Pl.’s Resp. 5 [78]. The
Commission did not plead a violation of section 1522(a)(2)(D) in their Amended Complaint.
See Pl.’s Am. Compl. 19–21. Nevertheless, the Court considers both provisions in its
analysis and concludes that neither section 1522(a)(2)(A) nor section 1522(a)(2)(D) confers
a private right of action for States to challenge the Federal Defendants’ administration of the
resettlement program.
“[P]rivate rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.”
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001). “The judicial task is to interpret the statute
Congress passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right
but also a private remedy.” Id. “[T]he interpretive inquiry begins with the text and structure

ORDER – PAGE 6

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 7 of 19 PageID 2350

of the statute . . . .” Id. at 288 n.7. When interpreting a statute, courts presume that Congress
did not intend to create a private right of action. See La. Landmarks Soc’y, Inc. v. City of
New Orleans, 85 F.3d 1119, 1123 (5th Cir. 1996). To overcome this presumption, a plaintiff
must demonstrate “that Congress affirmatively contemplated private enforcement when it
passed the relevant statute.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
“[T]he right- or duty-creating language of the statute” is the most reliable indicator
of congressional intent to create a cause of action. Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S.
677, 690 n.13 (1979). The Supreme Court has previously inferred causes of action “where
the language of the statute explicitly conferred a right directly on a class of persons that
included the plaintiff in the case.” Id. (collecting cases). “Conversely, it has noted that there
‘would be far less reason to infer a private remedy in favor of individual persons’ where
Congress, rather than drafting the legislation ‘with an unmistakable focus on the benefited
class,’ instead has framed the statute simply as a general prohibition or a command to a
federal agency.” Universities Research Ass’n v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754, 772 (1981) (quoting
Cannon, 441 U.S. at 690–92).
The Court finds no indication that Congress affirmatively contemplated private
enforcement by States when it passed the Refugee Act. The Refugee Act establishes
procedures for the admission and resettlement of refugees in the United States. The
objectives of the Refugee Act, as explained by Congress, are “to provide a permanent and
systematic procedure for the admission to this country of refugees of special humanitarian
concern to the United States, and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the

ORDER – PAGE 7

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 8 of 19 PageID 2351

effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.” Refugee Act of
1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, § 101(b), 94 Stat. 102. Pursuant to the terms of this statute, the
State Department has established the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, a multiorganizational partnership designed to screen, transport, and provide resettlement services
for refugees.
The provisions of the Refugee Act require the Director of ORR and the federal agency
administering the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to consult with States regarding certain
aspects of the program. For instance, section 1522(a)(2)(A) provides that these entities “shall
consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private
nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended
distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States
and localities.” 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(A). Section 1522(a)(2)(D) also provides that “[w]ith
respect to the location of placement of refugees within a State, the Federal agency . . . shall,
consistent with such policies and strategies and to the maximum extent possible, take into
account recommendations of the State.” 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(D).
The Commission concedes that the Refugee Act does not provide States with an
express cause of action to enforce its provisions. Rather, the Commission contends that
section 1522(a)(2)(A) and section 1522(a)(2)(D) contain implied causes of action.2 Neither
2

In their Reply, the Federal Defendants raise for the first time the issue of sovereign
immunity and whether a court may imply a cause of action against the United States without
an express waiver of sovereign immunity. See Fed. Defs.’ Reply 1–2 [80]. Because the
Commission did not have an opportunity to address this argument, the Court does not
consider it here.

ORDER – PAGE 8

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 9 of 19 PageID 2352

of these provisions, however, employs the kind of right- or duty-creating language typically
associated with an implied cause of action. Instead, Congress phrased both sections as
directives to a federal agency regarding its administration of a federal benefits program.
Such directives do not evidence congressional intent to create a private cause of action. See,
e.g., Delancey v. City of Austin, 570 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding no cause of action
to enforce statute that directed federal agency to provide certain information and services to
displaced persons); see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284 n.3 (2002) (noting
courts “rarely impute to Congress an intent to create a private right of action” where a statute
does not include right- or duty-creating language). Moreover, within the broader context of
the nation’s immigration laws, Congress has expressly authorized judicial review of other
federal agency actions. E.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (authorizing review of final removal
order). And where Congress creates a comprehensive statutory scheme with express
provision for private enforcement in certain circumstances, “it is highly improbable that
Congress absentmindedly forgot to mention an intended private action.” Transamerica
Mortg. Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 20 (1979) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
The Commission argues that the legislative history of the Refugee Act and its
amendments supports the implication of a private cause of action. In particular, the
Commission argues that the legislative history demonstrates a clear congressional intent to
expand the role of States in the country’s refugee program and to maintain the program’s
ability to respond flexibly to emergency situations. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-256 (1979)

ORDER – PAGE 9

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 10 of 19 PageID 2353

(describing need for flexibility); S. Rep. No. 97-638, at 9 (1982) (calling for increased
consultation between federal, state, and local officials). Although courts should refrain from
considering legislative history where the language of the statute is unambiguous, see United
States v. Kaluza, 780 F.3d 647, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2015), the Court nevertheless notes that the
legislative history of the Refugee Act says nothing about a State’s ability to enforce the
statute via a private cause of action. In fact, the House Committee on the Judiciary, in
considering the House version of a 1986 amendment to the Refugee Act, noted that the
consultation requirement is “not intended to give States and localities any veto power over
refugee placement decisions, but rather to ensure their input into the process and to improve
their resettlement planning capacity.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-132, at 19 (1985). The legislative
history of the Refugee Act simply does not support the Commission’s position.
Finding no evidence of congressional intent to create a private cause of action to
enforce the Refugee Act’s provisions, the Court declines to imply one here.
B. The Administrative Procedure Act Does Not Provide a Cause of Action
The Court has held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not provide the
Commission with a cause of action because advance consultation under the Refugee Act is
not “agency action” within the meaning of the statute. See Prelim. Inj. Order at 9–10. The
Commission advances several new arguments in support of its position that advance
consultation constitutes agency action. These arguments are unavailing, however, and the
Court stands by its prior holding.

ORDER – PAGE 10

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 11 of 19 PageID 2354

The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes “[a] person suffering legal wrong
because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the
meaning of a relevant statute,” to seek judicial relief. 5 U.S.C. § 702. Section 551(13)
defines “agency action” as “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction,
relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). If a person
challenges a federal agency’s failure to act, “[t]he reviewing court shall . . . compel agency
action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”

5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

An agency’s failure to act is “properly understood as a failure to take an agency action
– that is, a failure to take one of the agency actions (including their equivalents) earlier
defined in § 551(13).” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 62 (2004). Like
the other forms of agency action defined in section 551(13), a failure to act must be discrete.
Id. at 63. The “common business of managing government programs” – such as “prepar[ing]
proposals, conduct[ing] studies, [and] meet[ing] with Members of Congress and interested
groups” – does not constitute agency action. Fund for Animals, Inc. v. BLM, 460 F.3d 13,
19–20 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (holding agency budget request is not agency action).
The Commission contends that the Federal Defendants’ failure to consult in advance
with the States is a failure to take an agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
However, the statutory provisions cited by the Commission do not contemplate “agency
action” as the term is defined in 8 U.S.C. § 551(13). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a), the Federal
Defendants must “consult regularly (not less often than quarterly)” with the States regarding
“the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees” prior to resettlement.

ORDER – PAGE 11

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(A).

Page 12 of 19 PageID 2355

The Federal Defendants also must “take into account

recommendations of the State” regarding “the location of placement of refugees within a
State . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(D). But neither advance consultation nor internal
consideration constitute “an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or
denial thereof.” Id. Rather, both procedures are part of the “common business of managing
government programs.” Fund for Animals, 460 F.3d at 19–20. This kind of executive
activity is not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Commission argues that the Refugee Act’s advance consultation requirement is
discrete because “the sponsorship process” and “the intended distribution of refugees,”
8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(A), are each determined on an individual basis. But even if the
consultation requirement could be parsed into several separate discourses regarding each
individual refugee, the statute nevertheless contemplates “regular[]” consultation on at least
a quarterly basis. Id. Thus, advance consultation under the Refugee Act is not a discrete
agency action, but rather an ongoing process of communication.
The Commission contends that two cases – California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S.
Department of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2011), and Salmon Spawning & Recovery
Alliance v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 550 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2008) – support its
position that advance consultation constitutes discrete agency action. Neither case is
apposite. California Wilderness involved an objection to a Department of Energy order
formally designating two national interest electric transmission corridors. 631 F.3d at
1080–83. The court held that the designation order was unlawful because the Department

ORDER – PAGE 12

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 13 of 19 PageID 2356

of Energy had failed to comply with its statutory duty to consult with affected States before
entering the orders. Id. at 1085–95. Importantly, the final agency action at issue in
California Wilderness was the designation order itself, not the failure to consult.
Similarly, in Salmon Spawning, the plaintiffs alleged that the government agencies
had violated the Endangered Species Act “by allowing the importation of ESA-listed salmon
without completing the consultation required” by the act. 550 F.3d at 130. The court in
Salmon Spawning found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claim. Id. at 1130–32.
But Salmon Spawning never addressed the question of whether consultation constitutes
agency action.
The Commission has not alleged that the Federal Defendants violated the Refugee Act
by improperly resettling refugees. Rather, the Commission challenges the lack of advance
consultation itself, regardless of whether the Federal Defendants decide to resettle refugees
in Texas or not. But the alleged inadequacies in the Federal Defendants’ consultations with
the Commission are not final agency actions reviewable by this Court. Because the Federal
Defendants’ alleged failure to consult with the Commission prior to the resettlement of
refugees does not constitute agency action, the Commission lacks a cause of action under the
Administrative Procedure Act.
C. The Declaratory Judgment Act Does Not Provide a Cause of Action
In its Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court held that the Declaratory Judgment Act
does not provide a cause of action for the enforcement of the Refugee Act’s advance
consultation requirement. See Prelim. Inj. Order at 7. The Commission nevertheless

ORDER – PAGE 13

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 14 of 19 PageID 2357

maintains that the Declaratory Judgment Act provides a cause of action, citing Planned
Parenthood of Housing and Southeast Texas v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2005). In
Planned Parenthood, the Fifth Circuit noted in dicta that the Declaratory Judgment Act
“might well provide a cause of action where . . . jurisdiction is well-established.” Id. at 334
n.47. The Fifth Circuit mentioned this possibility, however, within the context of a
preemption claim based on the Supremacy Clause – a very different circumstance.3 More
importantly, recent Fifth Circuit precedent soundly establishes the principle that “the
Declaratory Judgment Act alone does not create a federal cause of action.” Harris Cty. v.
MERSCORP Inc., 791 F.3d 545, 552 (5th Cir. 2015). Thus, the Planned Parenthood dicta
has been repudiated.
The Court accordingly holds that the Commission does not have a cause of action
under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
IV. THE COURT GRANTS THE IRC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
The Commission asserts one claim against the IRC for declaratory judgment under
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02 that the IRC has breached its contracts with the Commission. Under
Texas law, to state a claim for breach of contract, the Commission must allege “(1) the
existence of a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff;
(3) breach of the contract by the defendant; and (4) damages sustained by the plaintiff as a
3

In particular, the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff had an implied cause of action
to bring the preemption claim without identifying the source of the enabling statute or
constitutional provision. Id. at 334. The Fifth Circuit’s statement merely explored the
potential justifications for ample precedent permitting judicial review of plaintiffs’
preemption claims. Id. at 334 n.47.

ORDER – PAGE 14

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 15 of 19 PageID 2358

result of the breach.” Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Egle Grp., LLC, 490 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. Kalama Int’l, L.L.C., 51 S.W.3d 345, 351 (Tex. App.
2001)). The IRC moves to dismiss the Commission’s breach of contract claim, arguing that
the Commission has failed to allege a plausible breach of the parties’ agreements. Because
the Commission does not allege sufficient facts to establish a breach, the Court grants the
motion and dismisses the breach of contract claim.
A. Contractual Provisions Requiring Cooperation
To facilitate the provision of services to admitted refugees, the Commission entered
into two agreements with the IRC. The first agreement concerns the provision of cash
assistance to refugees, see Pl.’s Am. Compl., Ex. J 1 [13-9] (“Ex. J”), and the second
agreement relates to the provision of social services to refugees, see Pl.’s Am. Compl., Ex.
K 1 [13-10] (“Ex. K”). Both agreements require the IRC to “[p]rovide services in
compliance with this contract and with applicable Federal laws and regulation [sic], state
laws and regulations, and Commission policies including service delivery standards.” Ex.
J at 5; Ex. K at 5.
The Commission alleges that the IRC violated its duties under federal law by refusing
to provide information regarding specific refugees. Although the Commission does not
identify in its Amended Complaint the kind of information it seeks, the Commission did
attach a letter to its Amended Complaint asking the IRC for “all information relating to
Syrians slated or scheduled for resettlement in Texas,” including information about the
individual Syrians’ security screenings. Pl.’s Am. Compl., Ex. H [13-7] (“Ex. H”). Because

ORDER – PAGE 15

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 16 of 19 PageID 2359

“[a] written document that is attached to a complaint as an exhibit is considered part of the
complaint,” Ferrer, 484 F.3d at 780, for purposes of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court
assumes that this information was withheld.
According to the Commission, the IRC’s statutory duty to provide this information
arises from 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(1)(B)(iii). This section states that “[i]t is the intent of
Congress that in providing refugee assistance under this section . . . local voluntary agency
activities should be conducted in close cooperation and advance consultation with State and
local governments.” 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(1)(B)(iii). The provision does not require “close
cooperation and advance consultation”; rather, its language is hortatory. By contrast, several
other portions of the Refugee Act specifically require the disclosure of certain information
to the States. E.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1522(b)(4)(C) (“The Secretary shall . . . assure that State or
local health officials at the resettlement destination within the United States of each refugee
are promptly notified of the refugee’s arrival and provided with all applicable medical
records . . . .”); 8 U.S.C. § 1522(b)(7)(B) (requiring nonprofit agencies to notify local welfare
offices of refugees’ employment offers and provide documentation regarding receipt of cash
assistance and other services). Without more, section 1522(a)(1)(B)(iii)’s statement of
congressional intent does not support a statutory entitlement to the information the
Commission seeks. Cf. Ridgely v. Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 512 F3d 727, 739 (5th
Cir. 2008) (finding congressional statement of intent to provide “continuing” assistance did
not mandate provision of continued rent assistance payments where statute left specifics of
program to agency’s discretion).

ORDER – PAGE 16

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 17 of 19 PageID 2360

The Commission does not identify any other law or regulation that the IRC has
violated.4 Accordingly, the Court determines that the Commission has not stated sufficient
facts to show the IRC breached its duty to provide services in accordance with the law.
B. Contractual Provisions Requiring Access to Records
The Commission alleges that the IRC’s failure to provide information regarding
specific refugees also violates the cooperation clauses in the agreements. According to this
provision, the IRC “must cooperate fully and allow [the Commission] and all appropriate
federal and state agencies or their representative’s [sic] access to client records, books, and
supporting documents pertaining to services provided.” Ex. J at 1; Ex. K at 1. This provision
is part of the Commission’s authority “to monitor and conduct fiscal and/or program audits”
of the IRC “to the extent of services provided . . . .” Id. In light of the Commission’s
authority to monitor and audit its services, the IRC must submit to “[o]n site visits” and
provide access “to all books and records . . . for purposes of inspection, monitoring, auditing,
or evaluating such materials.” Id.
The IRC argues that its obligation to provide access to records pertains only to
“services provided,” and therefore does not apply to refugees “slated or scheduled for

4

In its Response, the Commission argues that section 1522(a)(2)(A) requires
consultation “before [refugees’] placement,” and that section 1522(a)(2)(D) requires
placement decisions to “take into account” States’ recommendations “to the maximum extent
possible.” See Pl.’s Resp. to IRC’s Mot. to Dismiss 4 [64] (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1522
(a)(2)(A), (D)). However, both of these provisions are directed to the federal agency
administering the resettlement program, not nonprofit agencies providing resettlement
services. See 8 U.S.C. § 1522 (a)(2)(A), (D).

ORDER – PAGE 17

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 18 of 19 PageID 2361

resettlement in Texas.” See Ex. H.5 In its Response, the Commission did not address this
argument. The Court agrees with IRC’s interpretation of the provisions requiring access to
records. These provisions pertain to services provided after the resettlement of refugees, not
before. The Commission does not allege that the IRC provided cash assistance or social
services to refugees who had yet to arrive in Texas. The Court finds that the Commission
has not stated a plausible breach of these provisions.6
CONCLUSION
The Commission lacks a cause of action – under either the Refugee Act, the
Administrative Procedure Act, or the Declaratory Judgment Act – to enforce the Refugee
Act’s advance consultation requirement. The Commission also fails to state a plausible claim
for breach of contract against the IRC. Accordingly, the Court dismisses all claims against
the Federal Defendants and the IRC.

5

The IRC also argued that 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 and 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f) prohibit the
disclosure of this information. Because the Court resolves the motion to dismiss on other
grounds, the Court does not reach this theory.
6

In its Response, the Commission asserts that “[b]eyond its failure to provide
information, IRC has refused to comply with Plaintiff’s request that it cease the resettlement
of refugees from Syria” until the Commission has “ha[d] its say in the conversation of who
is, or is not, an ‘eligible individual.’” Resp. at 3. Nowhere in the Amended Complaint,
however, does the Commission allege that the IRC has provided resettlement assistance to
ineligible clients. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court generally
limits its review to the face of the pleadings. See Spivey, 197 F.3d at 774. Accordingly, the
Court does not consider this theory.

ORDER – PAGE 18

 Case 3:15-cv-03851-N Document 81 Filed 06/15/16

Page 19 of 19 PageID 2362

Signed June 15, 2016.

_________________________________
David C. Godbey
United States District Judge

ORDER – PAGE 19