Case: Perales v. Casillas

5:86-cv-00910 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Filed Date: June 9, 1986

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 9, 1986, immigrant visa applicants brought a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, requesting declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief requiring the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to change its method of considering petitions for voluntary departure and employment authorization for undocumented aliens who had initial immigration petitions filed on their behalf by their U.S. citizen spouses. Plaintiffs alleged that t…

On June 9, 1986, immigrant visa applicants brought a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, requesting declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief requiring the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to change its method of considering petitions for voluntary departure and employment authorization for undocumented aliens who had initial immigration petitions filed on their behalf by their U.S. citizen spouses. Plaintiffs alleged that the INS' failure to act on their applications for voluntary departure and employment authorization violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. and the Fifth Amendment.

On January 6, 1988, the District Court (Judge Edward C. Prado) certified the case as a class action, with the class consisting of: "All immigrant visa applicants who reside within the San Antonio, Texas INS District and are immediate relatives of United States citizens or within sixty days of visa availability and who have applied or will apply for employment authorization and (1) whose applications for employment authorization have been or will be denied, or (2) whose applications for employment authorization have not been timely adjudicated."

After a two day trial in July 1988, the District Court (Judge Prado) issued a lengthy ruling and permanent injunction in an order dated November 14, 1988. The injunction contained four parts: "(1) All requests for voluntary departure shall be adjudicated within 60 days, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d), and applications for voluntary departure and employment authorization shall be considered jointly; (2) all denials of voluntary departure shall be made in writing, in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(c);(3) defendants shall be prohibited from denying requests for employment authorization and voluntary departure on certain enumerated grounds; and (4) the INS shall be prohibited from initiating deportation proceedings against class members in retaliation for their requests for relief."

The INS appealed parts 3 and 4 of the injunction. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the challenged portions of the injunction. Perales v. Casillas, 903 F.2d 1043, 1053 (5th Cir.1990). Rehearing was denied by Perales v. Casillas, 912 F.2d 1465 (5th Cir.1990).

While the appeal was pending, the District Court awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Defendants appealed the fee award. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the fee award for reconsideration in light of the appellate opinion on the merits. Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1992).

We have no further information on the case.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (12/27/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Clark, Charles (Mississippi)

Garwood, William Lockhart (Texas)

Goldberg, Irving Loeb (Louisiana)

Higginbotham, Patrick Errol (Texas)

Reavley, Thomas Morrow (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Hines, Barbara (Texas)

Teran, Lee J. (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Ball, Gregory (Texas)

Doyle, Mary K. (District of Columbia)

Ederer, Ronald F (Texas)

Judge(s)

Clark, Charles (Mississippi)

Garwood, William Lockhart (Texas)

Goldberg, Irving Loeb (Louisiana)

Higginbotham, Patrick Errol (Texas)

Reavley, Thomas Morrow (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Hines, Barbara (Texas)

Teran, Lee J. (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Ball, Gregory (Texas)

Doyle, Mary K. (District of Columbia)

Ederer, Ronald F (Texas)

Evans, Richard M. (District of Columbia)

Eversberg, Helen M. (Texas)

Gerson, Stuart M. (District of Columbia)

Golding, Marshall Tamal (District of Columbia)

Moynihan, Jack B. (Texas)

Singer, Michael Jay (District of Columbia)

Walter, Mark C. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

903 F.2d 1043

June 25, 1990 Order/Opinion

Denials of Rehearing En Banc

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

912 F.2d 1465

Aug. 13, 1990 Order/Opinion

Appeal From Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas [Brief for Appellees]

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Jan. 11, 1991 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Reply and Responsive Brief for the Appellants/Cross-Appellees

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

March 18, 1991 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

950 F.2d 1066

Jan. 7, 1992 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 9, 1986

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All immigrant visa applicants who reside within the San Antonio, Texas INS District and are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or within 60 days of visa availability and whose application for employment authorization were denied or not timely processed

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

MALDEF

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.

Availably Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 1988 - 0

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Deportation - criteria

Deportation - procedure

Employment

Family Separation

Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties

Work authorization - criteria

Work authorization - procedures