in the united states district court for the southern ... · acosta, interim district director for...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MCALLEN DIVISION TERESA D. PADILLA, JOSE LUIS and § MARIA EVA GUZMAN, JAIME SANCHEZ § MALDONADO, ANITA DE ALVA § MASCORRO, ROBERTO CARRERA, ISAIAS § TOSCANO MONTEMAYOR, ISAUL § TOSCANO MONTEMAYOR, ISAEL § TOSCANO MONTEMAYOR, MARIANELA § POLNICK, ANSELMO MEDINA REMIGIO, § YOMI BOMBATA, ROBERT CELOVSKY, § SAHCHART TANCOOMTONG, RICARDO § ROMERO-CABRERA, YORLINE ROMERO- § YANEZ, DIVYESHBHAI G. BHAKTA, § ISAAC S. GALICIA-GONZALEZ, HECTOR § MALDONADO, AYMAN MUSTAFA ALI § MAHMOUD, individually and on behalf of § all others similarly situated, § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § CIVIL NO. § TOM RIDGE, Secretary for Homeland Security, § EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., Acting Director for § the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration § Services, KENNETH PASQUARELL, Interim § Regional Director for the Bureau of Citizenship § and Immigration Services, MICHAEL § TROMINSKI, Interim District Director for § the Harlingen BCIS District, SHARON § HUDSON, Interim District Director for the § San Antonio BCIS District, and HIPOLITO § ACOSTA, Interim District Director for the § Houston BCIS District, § § Defendants. §

COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS, DECLARATORY

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs Teresa D. Padilla, Jose Luis and Maria Eva Guzman, Jaime Sanchez

Maldonado, Anita De Alva-Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul

2

Toscano Montemayor, Isael Toscano Montemayor, Marianela Polnick, Anselmo Medina

Remigio, Yomi Bombata, Robert Celovsky, Sahchart Tancoomtong, Ricardo Romero-

Cabrera, Yorline Romero-Yanez, Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta, Isaac S. Galicia-Gonzalez, Hector

Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, and a class of similarly situated persons file this

class action complaint for mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief to protect the

constitutional and statutory rights of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who were or will be

granted lawful permanent resident status by the Harlingen, Houston, and San Antonio

Immigration Courts.

Plaintiffs are immigrants in Texas who were granted LPR status in removal

proceedings.1 For a variety of reasons, Defendants placed Plaintiffs in removal proceedings

seeking to deport them.2 At their removal hearings, Plaintiffs were successful in securing

relief from removal through either cancellation of removal, Immigration and Nationality Act

(“INA”) § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b), or adjustment of status to that of LPRs, INA §

245, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. In granting relief from removal, an Immigration Judge considered

Plaintiffs’ eligibility to become lawful permanent residents and accorded them such status.

Although declared lawful permanent residents, Plaintiffs were provided with

inadequate documentation of their LPR status. Plaintiffs were given only the Immigration

Judge’s order granting them relief from removal. Such documentation is inadequate for the

purpose of demonstrating proof of their LPR status and right to work and violates Plaintiff’s

statutory and constitutional rights.

1 With the exception of Plaintiffs Isaias, Isaul and Isael Toscano Montemayor, all the named plaintiffs reside in Texas. The Toscano Montemayors’ immigration cases are under the administrative control of the Harlingen BCIS District Office. 2 As used herein, the term "removal" and “deportation” are used interchangeably to refer to the expulsion of immigrants who previously entered the United States.

3

As LPRs, Plaintiffs have acquired all the rights and obligations federal law accords

persons with legal permanent resident status. Plaintiffs are lawfully in the United States and

have the right to secure employment, apply for some public benefits, enroll in a public

college, and travel abroad. Plaintiffs, however, cannot fully enjoy these rights. Moreover,

Plaintiffs live in fear of being stopped by state or federal officials and required to

demonstrate lawful status in the United States. Plaintiffs fear that some officials will not

credit their claim to lawful status and that Plaintiffs will be detained for an indeterminate

amount of time.

Plaintiffs seek mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to

issue Petitioners and class members with proper documentation of their LPR status pending

receipt of their permanent alien registration cards.

I. JURISDICTION

1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, the Immigration and

Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended by the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L.

No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 1570, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5

U.S.C. § 701 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, and

2201. This Court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2202, and 5 U.S.C.

§ 702 et seq.

4

II. VENUE

2. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

because at least one defendant in this action resides in such district. 28 U.S.C. §

1391(e).

III. PARTIES

3. Plaintiffs and class members are lawful permanent residents of the United States and

are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs acquired

their LPR status while in removal proceedings. However, they have not been given

adequate documentation evidencing their LPR status and their right to work in the

United States.

4. Michael Trominski is the Interim Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

(“BCIS”) District Director of the Harlingen District of the BCIS. In his capacity as

Interim BCIS District Director, Mr. Trominski administers the immigration laws on

behalf of the Secretary for Homeland Security (hereinafter “Department of Homeland

Security or DHS”) in the seven (7) southernmost counties in Texas that are served by

the Harlingen District. In his position, he has decision-making authority with respect

to the matters alleged in this complaint by Plaintiffs and class members whose

immigration cases are in the control of the Harlingen District Office.

5. Hipolito Acosta is the Interim BCIS District Director of the Houston District of the

BCIS. In his capacity as Interim BCIS District Director, Mr. Acosta administers the

immigration laws on behalf of the Secretary for DHS in the 30 counties in south-

eastern Texas that are served by the Houston District. In his position, he has

decision-making authority with respect to the matters alleged in this complaint by

5

Plaintiffs and class members whose immigration cases are in the control of the

Houston District Office.

6. Sharon Hudson is the Interim BCIS District Director of the San Antonio District of

the BCIS. In her capacity as Interim BCIS District Director, Ms. Hudson administers

the immigration laws on behalf of the Secretary for DHS in the 78 counties in central

and south Texas that are served by the San Antonio District. In her position, she has

decision-making authority with respect to the matters alleged in this complaint by

Plaintiffs and class members whose immigration cases are in the control of the San

Antonio District Office.

7. Kenneth Pasquarell is the Interim BCIS Regional Director for the central region. In

his capacity as Interim BCIS Regional Director, Mr. Pasquarell administers the

immigration laws on behalf of the Secretary for DHS in several states, including

Texas. As such, he has decision-making authority with respect to the matters alleged

in this complaint by Plaintiffs and class members whose immigration cases are in the

control of the Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio district offices.

8. Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., is the Acting Director of BCIS of the DHS. In his capacity as

Acting Director of BCIS, Mr. Aguirre is responsible for the administration of

immigration benefits and services including the processing of citizenship

applications, family and employment-based petitions, alien registration, asylum and

refugee processing, and issuance of documentation evidencing immigration status of

immigrants residing in the United States. As such, he has decision-making authority

over the matters alleged in this complaint, specifically BCIS’s failure to provide

6

documentation to Plaintiffs and class members of their LPR status in the United

States and authorization to work.

9. Tom Ridge is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary Ridge is charged with,

among other things, administering the BCIS and the implementation and enforcement

of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As such, he has ultimate decision-making

authority over the matters alleged in this complaint, specifically BCIS’s failure to

provide documentation to Plaintiffs and class members of their LPR status in the

United States.

IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

10. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of

themselves and all other similarly situated individuals. The plaintiff-class consists of:

A. All persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident

status in removal proceedings in the Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio

Districts of the BCIS and to whom BCIS fails to issue temporary

documentation evidencing lawful permanent resident status.

11. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The number of

individuals within the Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio BCIS Districts who are

granted relief from deportation is not known with precision and fluctuates. In

addition, Petitioners seek to define the class to include future class members so the

actual number will continue to increase.

12. Moreover, class members reside anywhere in the 115 counties served by the

Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio BCIS Districts. The Harlingen District serves

7

the 7 counties in the southern tip of Texas; the Houston District serves 30 counties in

south-eastern Texas; and, the San Antonio District serves 78 counties in central and

south Texas. The resultant difficulties in contacting and communicating with

members of the class make joinder of all class members impractical.

13. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the named plaintiffs and class

members. Common questions of law include whether BCIS may deny proof

evidencing LPR status to persons granted such status in removal proceedings and

whether Defendants’ delays in granting proof of LPR status to class members are

unreasonable and unlawful. Common questions of fact include whether BCIS is

failing to provide class members with documentation evidencing their LPR status and

whether the BCIS is delaying in granting documentation of LPR status to class

members.

14. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs

know of no conflict between their interests and those of the class they seek to

represent. In defending their own rights, the individual plaintiffs will defend the

rights of all proposed class members.

15. The named plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the class.

16. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to each member of the class

insofar as they have failed to provide to class members adequate documentation of

their LPR status.

V. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

17. Plaintiffs are immigrants who were placed in removal proceedings as provided under

the INA.

8

18. Removal proceedings are conducted under the auspices of the Executive Office for

Immigration Review which is under the U.S. Department of Justice. 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.0

(describing the organizational structure of EOIR), 3.9-3.44 (describing the

Immigration Court and the rules of procedure for removal proceedings).

19. Generally, removal proceedings are initiated with the service of a “Notice to Appear”

to the immigrant where he or she is advised of, among other things, the nature of the

proceedings, the charges of deportability against him or her, the time and place at

which the proceedings will be held, and the consequences for failing to appear. 8

U.S.C. § 1229(a).

20. The “Notice to Appear” is then filed with the Immigration Court by representatives of

the Attorney General. 8 C.F.R. § 3.14. The filing of the “Notice to Appear” vests

jurisdiction on the Immigration Court. Id.

21. The immigrant, and her counsel if represented, makes an appearance at a master

calendar hearing and the case is set for a merits hearing at a later date. 8 C.F.R. §§

3.17-3.21.

22. If the immigrant is determined to be deportable, she may seek several forms of relief

from deportation. Adjustment of status and cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §

1229b(b) are the primary forms of relief relevant to this litigation.

23. An immigrant in removal proceedings can obtain relief from deportation by adjusting

her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1255, 8 C.F.R. §

240.11(a)(1). Section 1255 of 8 U.S.C. sets forth the different types of persons who,

in the discretion of the Attorney General, may adjust their status to that of lawful

permanent resident.

9

24. Generally, an immigrant in removal proceedings can adjust if s/he was inspected and

admitted or paroled into the U.S. or is eligible under § 1255(i), has a visa immediately

available, has maintained lawful status (except for § 1255(i) applicants) and is

otherwise not statutorily ineligible. Thus, parents, spouses, and children of United

States citizen adults are eligible to adjust so long as they are not statutorily ineligible.

If they meet the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1255, lawful permanent residents can also

adjust their status in removal proceedings to defeat deportation.

25. Second, an immigrant can seek cancellation of removal and adjustment of status to

that of lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b).

26. Generally, cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) is available to

nonpermanent residents who have resided for a long period of time in the U.S. and

whose deportation would cause exceptional and unusual hardship to the immigrant’s

spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

27. Victims of domestic abuse, whether they are legal permanent residents or

nonpermanent residents, can obtain cancellation of removal if they meet certain

criteria. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(2).

28. For both adjustment and cancellation, the immigrant must affirmatively request the

relief by filing the proper forms, relevant evidence, and filing fees. 8 C.F.R. §§

240.11(a), 240.20, 240.21 (describing procedures for adjustment of status and

cancellation of removal). The immigrant must also submit to fingerprinting at a

facility designated by the local BCIS district office.

29. After the required forms have been submitted, the fees paid, and the fingerprints have

cleared through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the immigrant appears

10

before the Immigration Judge who approves or denies the request for adjustment of

status or cancellation of removal.

30. If the application for adjustment of status is granted, the immigrant acquires lawful

permanent residence status as of the date of the Immigration Judge’s order. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1255(b).

31. An Immigration Judge’s grant of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) is

recorded, or effective, as of the date of the order of cancellation and on that date, the

immigrant acquires lawful permanent resident status. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(3).

32. Except when certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decision of the

Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the

time to appeal if no appeal is taken. 8 C.F.R. § 3.39. The BCIS is bound to give full

effect to final decisions of the Executive Office of Immigration Review.

33. There are no regulations that specifically address the manner in which persons who

are granted LPR status in removal proceedings are to be provided with temporary

proof of their status in the United States.

34. After granting adjustment or cancellation, the Immigration Court issues a written

order to the immigrant indicating the section of the law under which relief was

provided. No other documentation or picture identification is given to the immigrant

that shows he or she is an LPR.

35. The Immigration Courts do not have the capacity to issue temporary documentation

evidencing LPR status to immigrants granted cancellation or adjustment.

36. Only the local BCIS district offices have the capacity to issue temporary

documentation of LPR status. Indeed, local BCIS district offices issue such

11

documentation on a daily basis to immigrants who are not in proceedings and who

adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents at the district level.

37. For immigrants who are granted LPR status in removal proceedings, the usual practice

in the Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio BCIS districts for obtaining temporary

proof of LPR status and permanent alien registration cards is to visit the local BCIS

district office and request ADIT (“Alien Documentation, Identification and

Telecommunication”) processing.

38. In ADIT processing, BCIS collects a fingerprint and photographs from the immigrant.

The local BCIS office sends the photographs and fingerprints to an off-site facility to

produce the permanent alien registration cards. Receipt of the permanent alien card

by the immigrant may take an extended period of time.

39. While waiting for their permanent alien registration card, immigrants can be issued

temporary proof of their LPR status.

40. The temporary proof of LPR status usually takes the form of an I-94 card (commonly

referred to as the temporary I-551) or an I-551 stamp on the immigrant’s passport.

41. Although local BCIS offices should conduct ADIT processing in a reasonable time

period, months often elapse before immigrants are called into the local BCIS office

for ADIT processing and issuance of temporary evidence of LPR status. As a result,

immigrants are without adequate documentation of their LPR status for an

inordinately lengthy period of time.

42. The Immigration Judge’s order granting relief is not adequate documentation for

immigrants to engage in employment, obtain a Social Security number, travel abroad,

and to register for school.

12

43. An Immigration Judge’s order is not proper documentation evidencing employment

eligibility or identity. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(1)(B),(C) and (D); 8 C.F.R. 274a.2(b)(v).

Indeed, the Immigration Judge’s order granting LPR status lacks important qualities

required by federal law such as a photograph of the immigrant and security features

making it resistant to tampering, counterfeiting, or fraudulent use.

44. The Immigration Judge’s order granting LPR status also is insufficient evidence of

identity and alien status for the purpose of obtaining a Social Security card. 8 C.F.R.

§ 422.107.

45. Immigrants granted LPR status by an Immigration Judge cannot travel abroad because

upon their return, the Immigration Judge’s order is not a valid documentation to

obtain admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(a).

46. Immigrants granted LPR status by an Immigration Judge cannot enroll in community

colleges because most schools request a Social Security number and proof of lawful

status in the United States.

47. Finally, immigrants who lack adequate documentation of their LPR status are in

violation of federal law which requires lawful permanent residents to carry at all times

a “certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card” or else be guilty of

a misdemeanor and be subject to a fine, imprisonment or both. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e).

48. As a result of having inadequate documentation evidencing lawful status in the United

States, these immigrants live in constant fear of being detained by law enforcement

officials for failing to prove their status in the United States.

13

VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Teresa D. Padilla

49. Teresa D. Padilla is a native and citizen of Mexico. She resides in Eagle Pass, Texas

with her four children.

50. Ms. Padilla was married to a lawful permanent resident who physically and mentally

abused Ms. Padilla and her children.

51. On April 20, 2000, Ms. Padilla was placed in removal proceedings. She requested

relief under INA 240A(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), because she was a victim of

domestic abuse and her removal would cause great hardship to her U.S. citizen

children.

52. She also applied for and was granted an employment authorization document

(“EAD”) during the pendency of her removal proceedings. The EAD was issued on

April 24, 2002, and expired on April 25, 2003.

53. After submitting the required forms and her fingerprints cleared through the FBI, the

Immigration Judge granted Ms. Padilla’s application for cancellation on October 31,

2002. As per 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(3), the Immigration Judge’s order of cancellation

also accorded LPR status to Ms. Padilla.

54. After the Immigration Judge granted her relief from deportation, Ms. Padilla presented

herself at the San Antonio BCIS office to request ADIT processing and temporary

proof of her LPR status. San Antonio BCIS officials told Ms. Padilla that they would

not initiate ADIT processing or provide her with temporary proof of her LPR status.

Instead, she would be notified by mail of a return date to complete ADIT processing

and get her temporary I-551 card or an I-551 stamp in her passport.

14

55. Seven months later and Ms. Padilla still has not been called for ADIT processing and

Defendants have not issued temporary proof of LPR status to Ms. Padilla.

56. As a result, Ms. Padilla cannot travel to Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico and see her

dying brother for the last time.

57. In addition, Ms. Padilla is at risk of losing her job. Although she received an EAD on

April 24, 2002, the document has expired and she is not authorized to receive another

EAD because she is now an LPR. Her employer has requested proof that Ms. Padilla

can legally work in the United States, but the only document she has is the

Immigration Judge’s order granting her cancellation of removal. The Immigration

Judge’s order, however, is not one of the documents that is proof of employment

eligibility and/or identity. 8 C.F.R. 274a.2(b)(v).

58. Because she lacks proof of her LPR status, Ms. Padilla was not allowed to enroll in

Southwest Texas Junior College in the spring and summer of 2003.

59. Finally, Ms. Padilla lives in fear of being arrested and detained because she does not

have adequate proof of her LPR status.

Jose Luis and Maria Eva Guzman

60. On January 27, 2003, Jose Luis Guzman-Arrellano and his wife, Maria Eva Guzman,

were granted cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Their

application was based on their long residence in the United States and the exceptional

and extreme hardship which would be suffered by their United States citizen daughter

if they were deported. The Guzmans’ daughter, Jessica, suffers from cerebral palsy.

She is severely mentally retarded, confined to a wheelchair, and legally blind.

15

61. Prior to the final hearing on their applications, the Guzmans were fingerprinted by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service and an FBI check revealed no arrests and no

other derogatory information. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Guzman has any criminal record.

The INS did not oppose the granting of the Guzmans’ application and waived appeal.

62. On January 28, 2003, the Guzmans’ attorney submitted a request for ADIT processing

to the Examinations Section of the Houston District BCIS (then INS) office.

63. To date, the Guzmans have not received an appointment for ADIT processing and

have not received adequate evidence of their lawful permanent resident status.

64. Because the Guzmans’ cancellation case was heard by the Court approximately one

month after they submitted their cancellation applications, they did not receive

temporary employment authorization while their cases were pending. Neither of the

Guzmans has a valid Social Security number, and they are unable to obtain Social

Security numbers because they lack adequate documentation of their immigration

status.

65. The Guzmans would like to travel outside of the Houston area to attend trainings

offered by the Texas Commission for the Blind which would help them learn to

provide better care for Jessica, but they are afraid to travel outside of the Houston area

because they do not have adequate evidence of their legal status.

66. Mr. Guzman is employed, and his employer withholds federal income tax and Social

Security payments from his pay, but Mr. Guzman has not been properly credited for

the taxes he has paid because he does not have a Social Security number and is unable

to obtain one.

16

67. Mrs. Guzman would like to work but cannot do so because she lacks adequate

documentation to show potential employers that she is eligible to work and cannot

obtain a Social Security number.

68. Because they lack Social Security numbers, the Guzmans cannot file their 2002 tax

return and receive their earned income credit.

69. The Guzmans would like to visit their family members in Mexico. Mr. Guzman’s

parents are over 80 years old and Ms. Guzman’s parents are over 70 years old.

Neither of the Guzmans have seen their parents for more than 10 years. However, the

Guzmans cannot travel abroad because they do not have adequate documentation to

allow their return to the United States.

Jaime Sanchez Maldonado

70. Mr. Jaime Sanchez Maldonado is a native and citizen of Mexico and has lived in the

United States since 1991. He currently resides in Round Rock, Texas with his U.S.

citizen wife and two children.

71. On May 23, 2002, Defendants placed Mr. Sanchez Maldonado in removal

proceedings. Prior to being placed in removal proceedings, Mr. Sanchez Maldonado

had applied to adjust his status to that of lawful permanent resident. Once in removal

proceedings, he requested relief from removal in the form of adjustment of status due

to his marriage to a U.S. citizen.

72. In support of his application, Mr. Sanchez Maldonado submitted all the necessary

forms, evidence, and fees.

17

73. Prior to the final hearing on his application, Mr. Sanchez Maldonado was

fingerprinted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and an FBI check

revealed no derogatory information which rendered him ineligible to adjust.

74. On February 12, 2003, the Immigration Judge granted Mr. Sanchez Maldonado’s

application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The grant of

LPR status, however, was conditional because Mr. Sanchez Maldonado and his wife

had been married less than two years before the date he acquired LPR status. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1186a(a), (g).

75. A conditional LPR shares the same rights and obligations as other LPRs. Two years

from the date he acquired LPR status and if he is still married, Mr. Sanchez

Maldonado can petition to remove the conditions on his LPR status. 8 U.S.C. §

1186a(c).

76. After acquiring lawful permanent residence, Mr. Sanchez Maldonado was not given

any proof of his LPR status other than the Immigration Judge’s order.

77. In March 2002, Mr. Sanchez Maldonado was issued an EAD but it expired on March

25, 2003. Under federal regulations, he is not entitled to renew his EAD. His

employer is aware that the EAD expired and is expecting additional proof of

employment authorization.

78. Mr. Sanchez Maldonado would like to travel to Mexico to visit his father, who is

seriously ill, but cannot do so because Mr. Sanchez Maldonado has no documentation

that allows him return to the United States.

18

79. Mr. Sanchez Maldonado lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials

because he does not have adequate documentation of his lawful status in the United

States.

Anita De Alva-Mascorro

80. Anita De Alva-Mascorro is a native and citizen of Mexico. She is a single parent and

resides with her two U.S. citizen children in Houston, Texas. Both her children have

severe kidney problems and need dialysis on a regular basis.

81. On August 16, 2001, Defendants placed Ms. De Alva-Mascorro in removal

proceedings. While in proceedings, Ms. De Alva Mascorro applied for cancellation of

removal because her deportation would cause extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen

children.

82. Prior to the final hearing on her application, Ms. De Alva Mascorro was fingerprinted

by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and an FBI check revealed no arrests

and no other derogatory information.

83. On November 27, 2002, an Immigration Judge approved Ms. De Alva-Mascorro’s

application for cancellation and granted her lawful permanent residence status.

84. Other than the Immigration Judge’s order, Ms. De Alva-Mascorro was not provided

with any other documentation evidencing her LPR status.

85. Because Ms. De Alva-Mascorro needed proof of her right to work in the United States

to secure employment, her immigration lawyer wrote Houston BCIS District Office

on January 6, 2003, requesting employment authorization for Ms. De Alva-Mascorro.

On April 15, 2003, Houston BCIS district office responded to Ms. De Alva-

19

Mascorro’s request for employment authorization by asking for additional

documentation.

86. On April 16, 2003, Ms. De Alva-Mascorro’s immigration lawyer responded to

Houston BCIS’s request for additional information by advising the agency that Ms.

De Alva-Mascorro had LPR status and needed proof of such status. To date, Houston

BCIS has not responded.

87. As a single parent, Ms. De Alva-Mascorro needs to work but cannot do so because she

lacks documentation evidencing her LPR status.

88. Ms. De Alva-Mascorro has family in Mexico whom she has not seen in many years.

She wants to travel to Mexico but cannot do so because she lacks documentation that

allows her to return to the United States.

Roberto Carrera

89. Roberto Carrera is a native and citizen of Mexico. Mr. Carrera is 21 years old and has

lived in the United States since the age of 3 months. Currently, he lives in Temple,

Texas with his family.

90. Sometime in 2002, Defendants placed Mr. Carrera in removal proceedings. Because

his removal would have caused extreme and unusual hardship to his legal permanent

resident parents, Mr. Carrera applied for cancellation of removal.

91. Prior to the final hearing on his application, Mr. Carrera was fingerprinted by the


other derogatory information that prevented him from adjusting his status.

92. On February 11, 2003, the Immigration Judge granted Mr. Carrera’s application for

cancellation and adjusted his status to that of lawful permanent resident. Defendants

20

did not appeal the Immigration Judge’s order and the order became final on March 13,

2003.

93. Other than the Immigration Judge’s order, Mr. Carrera was given no other proof of his

legal status in the United States. Shortly after he gained legal status, Mr. Carrera

sought ADIT processing at the San Antonio BCIS district office but was denied such

processing and temporary proof of his legal status.

94. To date, Mr. Carrera has not been scheduled for ADIT processing and has not

received any temporary proof of his LPR status.

95. Mr. Carrera would like to work but cannot do so because he has no evidence of his

lawful status in the United States. In addition, he is unable to secure a Social Security

number or a driver’s license.

96. Mr. Carrera also would like to join the military but cannot do so because he cannot

show that he is lawfully in the United States.

97. Mr. Carrera lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials because he

does not have adequate documentation of his lawful status in the United States.

Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul Toscano Montemayor, and Isael Toscano Montemayor

98. Isaias, Isaul and Isael Toscano Montemayor (the “Toscano Montemayor family

members”) are natives and citizens of Mexico. Since July 12, 1993, they have resided

continuously in the United States. Currently, they live in Metaire, Louisiana with

their parents.

99. The immigration cases of the Toscano Montemayor family members are in the

administrative control of the Harlingen BCIS District Office.

21

100. On January 28, 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Serviced placed the Toscano

Montemayor family members in deportation proceedings in Harlingen, Texas. Prior

to being placed in deportation proceedings, Isaias Toscano-Gil, the boys’ father, had

filed the necessary documents to adjust the Toscano Montemayor family members’

status to that of lawful permanent residents.

101. Through their immigration attorney, the Toscano Montemayor family members filed

the necessary forms, evidence, and fees to adjust their status in deportation

proceedings.

102. Prior to the final hearing on their adjustment application, the Toscano Montemayor

family members were fingerprinted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service

and an FBI check revealed no arrests and no other derogatory information that

prevented them from adjusting to LPRs.

103. On January 17, 2003, an Immigration Judge in Harlingen, Texas granted the Toscano

Montemayor family members’ applications to adjust their status to that of lawful

permanent residents. They were not, however, provided adequate proof of their LPR

status.

104. Prior to the Immigration Judge’s grant of adjustment, the Toscano Montemayor

family members applied for and received employment authorization documents.

105. The Toscano Montemayor family members would like to travel to Mexico to visit

relatives they have not seen for almost 10 years. However, they cannot travel abroad

because they lack documentation that allows them to return to the United States.

22

106. The Toscano Montemayor family members live in fear of being detained by law

enforcement officials because they lack adequate documentation of their lawful status

in the United States.

Marianela Polnick

107. Marianela Polnick is a native and citizen of Ecuador. She is married to a United

States citizen and they reside in Houston, Texas.

108. On August 24, 1998, her husband filed an immigrant visa petition on her behalf.

109. On February 4, 2003, an Immigration Judge in Houston, Texas granted her application

for lawful permanent residence based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen. The INS did

not oppose the approval of Ms. Polnick’s application and did not file an appeal.

110. Before the application was granted, Ms. Polnick had submitted her fingerprints to the

INS, and the FBI indicated that there was no record of any arrest or criminal activity

on her part.

111. On February 4, 2003, Ms. Polnick requested, through her attorney, that she be

scheduled for ADIT processing and that she be issued temporary proof of lawful

admission for permanent residence. To date she has not been scheduled for ADIT

processing and she has not received temporary evidence of her status.

112. Ms. Polnick has not seen her family in Ecuador for more than eight years and has

several nieces and nephews whom she has never seen. She is unable to travel outside

the United States because she does not have a document which will allow her to re-

enter the United States.

Anselmo Medina Remigio

23

113. Anselmo Medina Remigio is a native and citizen of Mexico. He is married to a U.S.

citizen and has two U.S. citizen children. He currently resides in Austin, Texas.

114. Mr. Medina Remigio was admitted as a temporary resident on April 12, 1988, and as a

legal permanent resident on December 1, 1990.

115. On March 15, 1999, Mr. Medina Remigio was placed in removal proceedings. At the

time, his wife was not a U.S. citizen, and Mr. Medina Remigio could not apply for the

relief of adjustment of status.

116. Mr. Medina Remigio was ordered removed by the Immigration Judge on April 9,

1999. He subsequently appealed and sought habeas relief.

117. Mrs. Medina became a U.S. citizen on May 30, 2001. She subsequently filed an I-130

visa petition on behalf of her husband. On July 26, 2002, the Board of Immigration

Appeals granted Mr. Medina Remigio’s motion to reopen proceedings in order to

allow him the opportunity to apply for adjustment of status.

118. Prior to the final hearing on his application, Mr. Medina Remigio was fingerprinted by

the Immigration and Naturalization Service and an FBI check revealed no arrests and

no other derogatory information that prevented him from adjusting his status.

119. On April 11, 2003, the Immigration Judge granted Mr. Medina Remigio’s application

for adjustment of status. The BICE waived appeal and the order became final. On the

same day, Mr. Medina Remigio went to the San Antonio District Office of the BCIS

to initiate ADIT processing. He was told to await further notice from BCIS.

120. To date, Mr. Medina Remigio has not been scheduled for ADIT processing and has

not received any temporary proof of his LPR status.

24

121. Mr. Medina Remigio is an independent trucker by profession and has in the past

traveled throughout the state of Texas and the border region as part of his business.

Mr. Medina Remigio lives in fear of being stopped and detained by law enforcement

officials because he lacks adequate proof of his lawful status in the United States.

Yomi Bombata

122. Yomi Bombata is a native of Nigeria. He has lived in the United States since June

1993. Currently, he resides in Houston, Texas with this United States citizen wife and

son.

123. Mr. Bombata was placed in deportation proceedings in October 1993 and was ordered

deported in absentia on February 17, 1994.

124. On October 16, 2000, Mr. Bombata moved to re-opened his immigration case and

transferred the case to Houston, Texas.

125. Once his immigration case was reopened, Mr. Bombata applied for adjustment of

status because of his marriage to a United States citizen. In support of his application

for adjustment, he submitted all the required forms, evidence, and fees.

126. Prior to the final hearing on his application, Mr. Bombata was fingerprinted by the



127. On February 21, 2003, the Immigration Judge granted Mr. Bombata’s application for

adjustment of status.

128. On March 28, 2003, Mr. Bombata, through his immigration attorney, requested ADIT

processing from the local BCIS office. No action was taken on his request.

25

129. Mr. Bombata would like to travel to Nigeria and visit his family whom he has not seen

for almost ten years. He cannot travel abroad, however, because he lacks adequate

documentation to return to the United States.

130. Mr. Bombata lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials because he

does not have adequate documentation of his LPR status.

Robert Celovsky

131. Robert Celovsky is a native of Slovakia. He has lived in the United States since June

1998. He currently lives in Houston, Texas with his United States citizen father.

132. Mr. Celovsky was placed in removal proceedings on April 13, 2000. While in

proceedings, Mr. Celovsky applied for but was denied withholding of removal.

133. While the case was on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Mr. Celovsky’s

father naturalized and Mr. Celovsky became eligible for adjustment of status.

134. In support of his application for adjustment, Mr. Celovsky submitted all the required

forms, evidence, and fees.

135. Prior to the final hearing on his application, Mr. Celovsky was fingerprinted by the



136. On March 28, 2003, an Immigration Judge granted Mr. Celovsky’s application for

adjustment of status. That same day, Mr. Celovsky, through his immigration attorney,

requested ADIT processing from the local BCIS district office. To date, no action has

been taken on his request.

137. Mr. Celovsky would like to travel to Slovakia to visit his family. He has not seen his

mother since 1998 and has been separated from his younger brother for several years.

26

Also, Mr. Celovsky’s grandparents are very ill. He cannot travel abroad, however,

because he lacks adequate documentation to return to the United States.

138. Mr. Celovsky lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials because he


Sahchart Tancoomtong

139. Sahchart Tancoomtong is a native of Thailand. He has lived in the United States since

September 1988. Currently, he resides in Houston, Texas with his United States

citizen wife and two step-daughters.

140. On February 18, 2000, Defendants placed Mr. Tancoomtong in removal proceedings.

He sought cancellation of removal because his deportation would cause hardship to

his lawful permanent resident wife, but his request for cancellation was denied.

141. While the case was on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Mr.

Tancoomtong’s wife naturalized and his case was remanded to the Immigration Court

for adjustment of status.

142. In support of his application for adjustment of status, Mr. Tancoomtong submitted all

the required forms, evidence, and fees.

143. Prior to the final hearing on his application, the INS fingerprinted Mr. Tancoomtong

and an FBI check revealed no arrests and no other derogatory information that

prevented him from adjusting his status.

144. On March 7, 2003, the Immigration Judge granted Mr. Tancoomtong’s application for

adjustment of status. On March 11, 2003, he requested, through his immigration

attorney, ADIT processing. No action has been taken on his request.

27

145. Mr. Tancoomtong would like to travel abroad to visit his family but cannot do so

because he lacks adequate documentation to re-enter the United States.

146. Mr. Tancoomtong lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement because he does

not have adequate documentation of his LPR status.

Ricardo Romero-Cabrera

147. Mr. Ricardo Romero-Cabrera is a native of Mexico. He has lived in the United States

since November 1996. Currently, he resides in Houston, Texas with his United States

citizen wife and two children.

148. In July 2000, the INS placed Mr. Romero-Cabrera in removal proceedings.

149. While in removal proceedings, Mr. Romero-Cabrera married his United States citizen

girlfriend and he became eligible to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent

resident.

150. In support of his application, Mr. Romero-Cabrera filed the required forms, evidence,

and fees.

151. Prior to the final hearing on his application, Mr. Romero Cabrera was fingerprinted by

the Immigration and Naturalization Service and an FBI check revealed no derogatory

information that prevented him from adjusting his status.

152. On December 31, 2002, an Immigration Judge reviewed Mr. Romero-Cabrera’s

application for adjustment and granted his application, thereby adjusting his status to

that of an LPR.

153. While in proceedings, Mr. Romero-Cabrera applied for and was given an employment

authorization document (EAD). The EAD, however, is due to expire in June 2003.

28

154. Because he is now a LPR, Mr. Romero-Cabrera cannot renew his EAD. He works

two jobs to support his wife and 2 children and fears losing his jobs if after June 2003,

he does not have documentary proof of his LPR status and/or his right to work.

155. Mr. Romero-Cabrera has no other documentation evidencing his LPR status. On

February 27, 2003, he requested, through his immigration attorney, ADIT processing.

No action has been taken on that request.

156. Mr. Romero-Cabrera lives in constant fear of being detained by law enforcement

officials because he does not have adequate documentation of his LPR status.

Yorline Romero-Yanez

157. Yorline Romero-Yanez is a native and citizen of Mexico. She has lived in the United

States since January 1992. Currently, she resides in Houston, Texas with her United

States citizen daughter, son, and father.

158. On April 5, 2002, the INS placed Ms. Romero-Yanez in removal proceedings.

159. During proceedings, Ms. Romero-Yanez applied for cancellation of removal under 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) because her deportation would cause exceptional and unusual

hardship to her U.S. citizen children. She has no family in Mexico and her complete

support system is in Houston, including both family and strong church ties.

160. In support of her request for cancellation, she submitted the required forms, evidence,

and fees.

161. Prior to the final hearing on her cancellation application, Ms. Romero-Yanez was

fingerprinted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and an FBI check

revealed no arrests and no other derogatory information that prevented her from

adjusting her status.

29

162. On February 5, 2003, an Immigration Judge granted Ms. Romero-Yanez’s application

for cancellation and adjusted her status to that of a lawful permanent resident.

163. Other than the Immigration Judge’s order, Ms. Romero-Yanez was given no other

proof of her LPR status.

164. As the sole supporter of her 2 children, Ms. Romero-Yanez desperately needs to work

but cannot do so lawfully because she lacks adequate documentation to work in the

United States.

165. Ms. Romero-Yanez lives in constant fear of being detained by law enforcement

officials because she does not have adequate documentation of her LPR status.

Divyeshbai G. Bhakta

166. Mr. Divyeshbai G. Bhakta is a native of India. He has lived in the United States since

May 1994. He currently resides in Houston, Texas with his United States citizen wife

and two children.

167. On February 11, 2002, the INS placed Mr. Bhakta in removal proceedings.

168. Because of his marriage to a United States citizen, Mr. Bhakta was eligible to adjust in

proceedings and proceeded to submit the required forms, evidence, and fees.

169. Prior to the final hearing on her cancellation application, the INS fingerprinted Mr.

Bhakta and an FBI check revealed no arrests and no other derogatory information that

prevented him from adjusting his status.

170. On July 2, 2002, an Immigration Judge granted Mr. Bhakta’s application for

adjustment and accorded him lawful permanent status.

171. Other than the Immigration Judge’s order, Mr. Bhakta was given no other proof of his

LPR status.

30

172. On July 8, 2002, Mr. Bhakta requested, through his attorney, ADIT processing. No

action has been taken on his request.

173. While in removal proceedings, Mr. Bhakta applied for and was granted an

employment authorization document (EAD). However, the EAD expired on

December 4, 2002.

174. To date, Mr. Bhakta lacks adequate documentation evidencing his LPR status and his

right to work. As a result, Mr. Bhakta has not been able to secure employment.

175. Mr. Bhakta has not seen his family in India for many years. He would like to travel

abroad to visit his family but cannot do so because he lacks adequate documentation

to re-enter the United States.

176. Mr. Bhakta lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials because he


Isaac S. Galicia-Gonzalez

177. Isaac S. Galicia-Gonzalez is a native and citizen of Mexico. He has lived in the

United States since approximately 1991. Currently, he resides in Baytown, Texas

with his United States citizen wife and three children.

178. The INS placed Mr. Galicia-Gonzalez in removal proceedings on December 8, 2000.

179. Because of his marriage to a United States citizen, Mr. Galicia-Gonzalez was eligible

to adjust his status to that of a LPR while in proceedings. He therefore filed all the

required forms, fees, and evidence.


Galicia-Gonzalez and FBI check revealed no arrests and no other derogatory

information that prevented him from adjusting his status.

31

181. On February 3, 2003, an Immigration Judge granted Mr. Galicia-Gonzalez’s

application for adjustment and accorded him lawful permanent resident status.

182. Other than the Immigration Judge’s order, Defendants failed to issue Mr. Galicia-

Gonzalez any other proof of his LPR status.

183. On March 17, 2003, Mr. Galicia-Gonzalez requested, through his attorney, ADIT

processing. No action has been taken on his request.

184. While in removal proceedings, Mr. Galicia-Gonzalez applied for and was granted an

employment authorization document (EAD). The EAD is current for the duration of

2003.

185. Mr. Galicia-Gonzalez has family in Mexico he has not seen for many years. He

would like to travel abroad to visit his family but cannot do so because he lacks

adequate documentation to re-enter the United States.

186. Mr. Galicia-Gonzalez lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials

because he does not have adequate documentation of his LPR status.

Hector Maldonado

187. Hector Maldonado is a native and citizen of Mexico. He has lived in the United States

since at least 1990. Presently, he resides in Austin, Texas with his United States

citizen wife and five children.

188. Sometime in 2002, Defendants initiated removal proceedings against Mr. Maldonado.

189. Because of his marriage to a United States citizen, Mr. Maldonado was eligible to

adjust his status to that of a LPR while in proceedings. He therefore filed all the


32


Maldonado and an FBI check revealed no arrests and no other derogatory information

that prevented him from adjusting his status.

191. On January 24, 2003, an Immigration Judge granted Mr. Maldonado’s application for

adjustment and accorded him lawful permanent resident status.

192. Other than the Immigration Judge’s order, Defendants failed to issue Mr. Maldonado

any other proof of his LPR status.

193. Mr. Maldonado is unable to work legally and provide for his family because he lacks

documentation evidencing his right to work in the United States. He also cannot


194. Mr. Maldonado has family in Mexico he has not seen for many years. He would like

to see his brother who is very ill but cannot travel abroad because he lacks adequate

documentation to re-enter the United States.

195. Mr. Maldonado lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials because

he does not have adequate documentation of his LPR status.

Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud

196. Mr. Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud is a native and citizen of Jordan. He has lived in

the United States since at least 1997. He currently resides in San Antonio, Texas with

his U.S. citizen wife.

197. Sometime in 2002, Defendants initiated removal proceedings against Mr. Mahmoud.

198. Because of his marriage to a United States citizen, Mr. Mahmoud was eligible to

adjust his status to that of a LPR while in proceedings. He therefore filed all the


33


Mahmoud and an FBI check revealed no arrests and no other derogatory information

that prevented him from adjusting his status.

200. On January 6, 2003, an Immigration Judge granted Mr. Mahmoud’s application for

adjustment and accorded him lawful permanent resident status.

201. Other than the Immigration Judge’s order, Defendants failed to issue Mr. Mahmoud

any other proof of his LPR status.

202. Sometime in late January 2003, Mr. Mahmoud went to the San Antonio BCIS district

office to inquire about processing and temporary proof of his LPR status. That same

day, he was sent by the district office to the application support center for

fingerprinting.

203. Mr. Mahmoud is unable to work legally and provide for his family because he lacks

documentation evidencing his right to work in the United States. He also cannot


204. Mr. Mahmoud has family in Mexico he has not seen for many years. He would like to

see his brother who is very ill but cannot travel abroad he lacks adequate

documentation to re-enter the United States.

205. Mr. Mahmoud lives in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials because he


Factual Allegations Common to the Class

206. A class of persons similarly situated to Plaintiffs was placed in removal proceedings

by Defendants.

34

207. Class members applied for relief from deportation and pursuant to federal regulations,

they submitted the proper forms, evidence, and fees.

208. Prior to the final hearing on their applications for relief, the Immigration and

Naturalization Service fingerprinted class members and FBI checks revealed no

arrests and no other derogatory information that prevented them from adjusting their

status.

209. At a later date, the Immigration Court conducted a hearing on each class member’s

request for relief from deportation. Defendants had the opportunity to challenge or

oppose the request.

210. The Immigration Court granted each class member’s request for relief from

deportation. Defendants had the right to appeal the decision of the Immigration Court

but waived appeal, and the order of the Immigration Court became final.

211. Some class members were granted adjustment of status and thus acquired LPR status

the day the Immigration Judge ordered their adjustment of status.

212. Other class members were granted cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)

and were also granted LPR status the day an Immigration Judge granted the

application for cancellation.

213. After obtaining relief from deportation, class members went to their local BCIS

district office to request ADIT processing, apply for their alien registration card

(“green card”) and obtain temporary proof of their LPR status in the United States.

214. The Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio BCIS district offices rejected class

members’ request for ADIT processing.

35

215. Weeks and months have passed and class members have not been called for ADIT

processing and are without proof of their LPR status in the United States.

216. The lack of documentation evidencing LPR status in the United States has caused

great hardship to class members.

217. Class members have encountered problems securing employment because they cannot

demonstrate their eligibility for employment in the United States.

218. Class members fear being detained by law enforcement officials because class

members do not have adequate documentation of their LPR status.

219. Class members are unable to travel abroad and visit relatives because they lack

documentation to return to the United States.

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count One Fifth Amendment

220. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 219 above.

221. Defendants’ policies, practices or customs violate Plaintiffs’ and class members’ Fifth

Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights.

Count Two Violation of INA

222. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 219 above.

223. Defendants’ policies, practices or customs violate 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. by denying

Plaintiffs and class members documentary evidence of their LPR status in the United

States.

Count Three Mandamus Action

28 U.S.C. § 1361

36


225. Defendants are charged with the responsibility of administering and implementing the

Immigration and Nationality Act. Defendants bear sole responsibility for providing

noncitizens with proof of lawful status in the United States. Defendants’ failure to

discharge their statutory obligations is injuring Plaintiffs and class members.

Defendants should be compelled to perform a duty owed to Plaintiffs and class

members, namely the provision of documentary evidence of LPR status to Plaintiffs

and class members.

Count Four Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

8 U.S.C. § 1324a


227. Defendants’ practices and procedures violate the IRCA provisions relating to the

unlawful employment of aliens by failing to provide Plaintiffs and class members with

satisfactory evidence of LPR status and/or their right to work in the United States.

Count Five Administrative Procedures Act

5 U.S.C. §§ 702 et seq.


229. By failing to give effect to final decisions of the Executive Office of Immigration

Review, and by failing to provide reasonable ADIT processing and interim

documentation of status, Defendants' practices and procedures violate the

Administrative Procedures Act and constitute agency action that is arbitrary and

capricious, and not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.

Count Five Declaratory Judgment Act

37

230. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 219 above.

231. Plaintiffs contend that Respondents actions and decisions relating to Petitioners’

continued detention are unconstitutional, violate the INA, and are arbitrary and

capricious and seek a declaration to that effect. 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

Count Six Equal Access to Justice Act

232. If they prevail, Petitioners will seek attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access

to Justice Act (“EAJA”), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully ask the Court to:

1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

2. Certify a class of all persons who were or will be granted legal

permanent resident status in removal proceedings in the Harlingen,

Houston, and San Antonio Districts of the BCIS and to whom BCIS

fails to issue temporary documentation evidencing lawful permanent

resident status;

3. Declare that Defendants’ policies, practices and customs which

deprive Plaintiffs and class members of documentary evidence of their

LPR status in the United States violate the United States Constitution,

the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Immigration Reform and

Control Act of 1986, and the Administrative Procedures Act;

4. Declare that Defendants’ practices violate legal duties owed to

Plaintiffs and class members under the Immigration and Nationality

38

Act;

5. Enjoin Defendants from denying Plaintiffs and class members

adequate documentary evidence of their LPR status in the United

States;

6. Order Defendants to issue Plaintiffs and class members with adequate

documentation of their LPR status;

7. Award Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

8. Grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW OF TEXAS By: ___________________________________ Javier N. Maldonado (attorney-in-charge) Texas Bar No. 00794216 118 Broadway, Suite 502 San Antonio, TX 78205 Phone: 210-277-1603 Fax: 210-225-3958 Lynn Coyle Illinois Bar No. 06204053 109 N. Oregon, Suite 302 El Paso, TX 79901 Phone: 915-532-3370 Fax: 915-532-3983

39

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND By: ____________________________________ Joseph P. Berra Texas State Bar No. 24027144 Nina Perales Texas State Bar No. 24005046 Leticia Saucedo Texas State Bar No. 00797381 Selena Solis Texas State Bar No. 00797471 140 E. Houston St., Ste. 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 224-5476 (210) 224-5382 (fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

in the united states district court for the southern ... · acosta, interim district director for...

Documents