Case: Santillan v. Mukasey

3:04-cv-02686 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: July 6, 2004

Closed Date: 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 6, 2004, individuals who had been granted the status of lawful permanent resident by the Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the United States Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and its Director, and the San Francisco District Director under 5 U.S.C. § 551…

On July 6, 2004, individuals who had been granted the status of lawful permanent resident by the Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the United States Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and its Director, and the San Francisco District Director under 5 U.S.C. § 551, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law of Texas, sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs sought to compel the federal government to provide them with documentation of their permanent resident status in a timely manner.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government no longer issued temporary documentation of a status change to lawful permanent residents and delayed its processes for issuing permanent documentation to individuals granted lawful permanent resident status. Without such documentation, the plaintiffs alleged, they were denied employment, travel, educational, and public benefits privileges granted to other legal permanent residents.

On July 21, 2004, the case was reassigned from Judge James Larson to District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.

On October 12, 2004, Judge Patel certified the class as follows: “The class consists of all persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the EOIR, through the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals of the United States, and to whom USCIS has failed to issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident with the exception that the class excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lope-Armor v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 04-CV-21685 (S.D. Fla.) and the plaintiff class in Padilla v. Ridge, No. M 03-126 S.D. Tex.).” 2004 WL 2297990.

On April 1, 2005, a new system of EOIR regulations went into effect. The new system reorganized the procedures governing security and law enforcement investigations of putative class members in several ways. Most significantly, it changed the timing of security examinations of applicants, requiring those examinations be completed before an immigrant’s application for adjustment of status could be heard by an immigration judge, rather than after a grant of adjusted status.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims because the new regulations rendered the claims of any class members granted LPR status after April 1, 2005 moot or otherwise non-justiciable. For those class members deemed LPRs prior to that date, defendants claimed that their claims should be dismissed without prejudice on the basis of non-justiciability, or that the class should be decertified for lack of numerosity and commonality.

On July 1, 2005, Judge Patel denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. She held that questions remained as to whether the plaintiffs’ problems would be solved under the new regulations. She also expressed concern that, “[w]hile the record before this court does not evince that the DHS changed its regulations to move security clearances outside the reach of the plaintiffs’ class action, the context of the case casts some doubt on defendants’ capacity to will to address the needs of the class as a whole, rather than simply target agency action for purposes of evading review.” 2005 WL 1592872.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction. On July 25, 2005, District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel issued an order referring the case to Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen for a settlement.

On August 24, 2005, Judge Patel granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and request for a permanent injunction. The Court ordered the parties to submit proposals as to the appropriate scope of the injunction. 388 F.Supp.2d 1065.

After reviewing proposals of the parties, Judge Patel issued a Permanent Injunction on December 22, 2005, requiring the government to begin timely processing of the plaintiffs' status documentation. 2005 WL 3542661.

The class was divided into two subclasses based on differences in the procedures through which class members were adjudicated to be lawful permanent residents. Members of the pre-April 1, 2005 subclass were granted LPR status under regulations in force prior to April 1, 2005. Under the pre-April 1 regulations, an alien seeking LPR status was not required to undergo any background checks prior to his or her EOIR adjudication. Thus, members of the pre-April 1 subclass might have been granted LPR status without having completed the background checks now required by USCIS before issuing permanent documentation. In accordance with the Permanent Injunction, a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) should be mailed to the class member from the ICPS facility within 15 days of capture of the member’s biometrics at an ASC, or 60 days from the member’s USCIS InfoPass appointment, whichever date was later.

In contrast, members of the post-April 1 subclass were required to complete the mandatory background checks prior to being granted LPR status. In accordance with the Permanent Injunction, a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) should be produced and mailed from the DHS Integrated Card Production System (ICPS) facility within 15 days of capture of the member’s biometrics at the ASC, or 30 days from the member’s USCIS InfoPass appointment, whichever date was later.

If a class member (in either the pre- or post-April 1 subclasses) attended his initial appointment at USCIS for documentation processing on or before the effective date of this Plan, the applicable time period described in the Plan would be counted from either 15 days prior to the effective date of the Plan or the date of the initial USCIS appointment, whichever date was later. In all such cases where USCIS required the member to provide biometrics for card production, USCIS had 15 days from the effective date of this Plan or the date of the member’s ASC appointment, whichever date was later, to produce and mail a permanent I-551. For three years from the effective date of the plan, DHS was required to provide quarterly reports to class counsel listing the class members who have contacted the POC during the reporting period.

On January 30, 2006, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an entry of a final judgment in the case as being unnecessary at the time as the harm that was the subject of the lawsuit was ongoing.

The government appealed the District Court's various rulings and orders. On February 7, 2008, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice to reinstatement in the event the district court declined to approve the settlement.

On April 9, 2008, Judge Patel ordered that the case Padilla et al v. Ridge et al Padilla v. Ridge was related to Santillan et al v. Ashcroft and was re-assigned to herself.

On April 14, 2008, the parties filed a joint motion for approval of a settlement agreement. On June 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to consolidate this case with Padilla v. Ridge. In addition, the Judge Patel re-certified the class as follows: “All persons who have been or will be granted lawful permanent resident status prior to termination of this Stipulation by the EOIR, through the Immigration Courts or the BIA, and to whom the USCIS has failed to issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. U.S. Attorney General, No 04-CV-21685 (S.D. Fla.).”

On July 21, 2008, Judge Patel approved a settlement agreement that covered both of the consolidated cases, vacated the injunction issued on December 22, 2005 and dismissed the cases. The obligations of the stipulation were to terminate 2 years from the effective day.

The defendants were to institute requirements for the issuance of evidence of LPR status to class members who were issued any of the following final orders by EOIR: (i) orders granting adjustment of status to permanent residence; (ii) orders granting cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of a non-permanent resident to permanent residence; (iii) orders granting suspension of deportation and adjustment of status of a non-permanent resident to permanent residence; (iv) suspension of deportation of special rule cancellation or removal; or (v) any other form of relief from removal that EOIR may grant that results in a class member being granted LPR status at the conclusion of removal proceedings (collectively, the “covered orders”). The defendants, acting through ICE, agreed to provide a written description of the post-order instructions for obtaining documentation of LPR status from USCIS at the time the class member received a covered order. The post-order instructions were to be posted on USCIS website with links to websites maintained by DHS and DOJ. USCIS were to issue Permanent Resident Cards to class members within a specified time period in the stipulation. Moreover, USCIS were to establish a national point of contact to accept inquiries from class members who did not receive status documents within a specified time period. This process was not available to a class member who in accordance with USCIS gathered information might be a risk to national security of public safety.

The Court retained no jurisdiction in this case except for sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear any class claim. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (2/25/2009)

Joanna Kuzdra (3/1/2018)

Related Cases

Padilla v. Ridge, Southern District of Texas (2003)

Amor v. U.S. Attorney General, Southern District of Florida (2004)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5718162/parties/santillan-v-ashcroft/


Judge(s)

Patel, Marilyn Hall (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alger, Maureen P. (California)

Armendariz, David Anton (Texas)

Chen, Reuben Ho-Yen (California)

Dwyer, John C (California)

Maldonado, Javier N (Texas)

Perales, Nina (Texas)

Perez, Marisol Linda (Texas)

Rhyu, Michelle S (California)

Solis, Selena N. (Texas)

Judge(s)

Patel, Marilyn Hall (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alger, Maureen P. (California)

Armendariz, David Anton (Texas)

Chen, Reuben Ho-Yen (California)

Dwyer, John C (California)

Maldonado, Javier N (Texas)

Perales, Nina (Texas)

Perez, Marisol Linda (Texas)

Rhyu, Michelle S (California)

Solis, Selena N. (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Flynn, Steven J. (District of Columbia)

Kiesler, Peter D. (District of Columbia)

Olsen, Edward A (California)

Putnam, Lisa M. (Texas)

Stevens, Elizabeth Jones (District of Columbia)

Swanson, Joann M. (California)

Walters, Mark C. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

USCA Docket (PACER)

Santillan v. Gonzales

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

July 23, 2007 Docket

Docket (PACER)

Santillan v. Ashcroft

Dec. 4, 2008 Docket

Docket [PACER]

Santillan v. Ashcrof

Dec. 4, 2008 Docket
1

Complaint for Mandamus, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Santillan v. Ashcroft

July 6, 2004 Complaint
32

Order [Re: Class Certification]

Santillan v. Ashcroft

2004 WL 2297990, 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 20824

Oct. 12, 2004 Order/Opinion
106

Order [Re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss]

Santillan v. Gonzales

2005 WL 1592872, 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 39727

July 1, 2005 Order/Opinion
137

Memorandum and Order [Re: Summary Judgment]

Santillan v. Gonzales

388 F.Supp.2d 1065

Aug. 24, 2005 Order/Opinion
154

Memorandum and Order Re:Permanent Injunction

Santillan v. Gonzales

2005 WL 3542661, 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 39118

Dec. 22, 2005 Order/Opinion
157

Memorandum and Order Re: Judgment

Santillan v. Gonzales

Jan. 30, 2006 Order/Opinion
185

Order Granting Joint Motion to Consolidate the Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re-certify the Class

Santillan v. Ashcroft

June 16, 2008 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5718162/santillan-v-ashcroft/

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
81

STIPULATION AND ORDER extending discovery deadline to 6/16/2005, and extending depositions deadline to 6/30/2005; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 5/31/2005. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2005)

June 1, 2005 RECAP
106

ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denying 57 defendants' Motion to Dismiss (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2005)

July 1, 2005 RECAP
109

ORDER - Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order. Settlement Conference set for 7/11/2005 01:00 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/7/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2005)

July 7, 2005 RECAP
115

ORDER EXCUSING ATTENDANCE AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 107 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/8/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2005)

July 8, 2005 RECAP
118

STIPULATION AND ORDER amending briefing schedule for cross motions for summary judgment; Motion Hearing reset for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before the honorable Marilyn Hall Patel; Signed by Judge William H Alsup on 7/20/2005. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2005)

July 20, 2005 RECAP
125

ORDER - Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/25/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2005)

July 25, 2005 RECAP
132

ORDER - Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference.Further Settlement Conference set for 8/30/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/1/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2005)

Aug. 1, 2005 RECAP
134

ORDER - Stipulation and Order Amending Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 8/30/2005 09:30 AM has been rescheduled to 8/29/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/2/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005)

Aug. 2, 2005 RECAP
137

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment, denying defendants' motion for Summary Judgment, denying defendants' motion to Strike; SEE ORDER FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SUBMISSION DEADLINES (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2005)

Aug. 24, 2005 RECAP
143

ORDER granting withdrawal of attorney David A Armendariz for plaintiffs; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 9/26/2005. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2005)

Sept. 26, 2005 RECAP
154

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Entering Permanent Injunction. Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 12/22/2005. (mhplc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2005)

Dec. 22, 2005 RECAP
157

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING plaintiffs' request for entry of judgment 156 ; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/30/2006. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2006)

Jan. 30, 2006 RECAP
159

ORDER STATISTICALLY DISMISSING CASE; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 2/14/2006. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2006)

Feb. 15, 2006 RECAP
176

Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 08-1531 CW. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/26/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2008)

March 26, 2008 RECAP
185

ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting (10) Motion to Consolidate Cases and re-certify in case 3:08-cv-01531-MHP; granting (182) Motion to Consolidate Cases and re-certify in case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2008)

June 17, 2008 RECAP
188

ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting joint motions for preliminary approval of settlement agreement and approval of notice to class members (7) Motion in case 3:08-cv-01531-MHP; (179) Motion in case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2008)

June 19, 2008 RECAP
190

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 7/21/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2008)

July 22, 2008 RECAP

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 6, 2004

Closing Date: 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Individuals who were granted the status of lawful permanent resident by the Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review and did not receive evidence of their status.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law

MALDEF

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services , Federal

Department of Homeland Security, Federal

U.S. Attorney General's Office , Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Confession of Judgment

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2005 - 2010

Content of Injunction:

Reporting

Issues

General:

Records Disclosure

Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues

Immigration/Border:

Admission - criteria

Admission - procedure

Constitutional rights

Status/Classification

Work authorization - criteria

Work authorization - procedures