Case: Akhtar v. Burzynski

8:02-cv-00245 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: March 7, 2002

Closed Date: 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 7, 2002, children of lawful permanent U.S. residents filed a lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the validity of an "age-out" provision in regulations governing nonimmigrant "V" visas. V visas were established as part of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000 (LIFE Act) and granted temporary lawful status to spouses and children of l…

On March 7, 2002, children of lawful permanent U.S. residents filed a lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the validity of an "age-out" provision in regulations governing nonimmigrant "V" visas. V visas were established as part of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000 (LIFE Act) and granted temporary lawful status to spouses and children of lawful permanent residents while they were waiting for immigrant visas. The regulation at issue, 8 CFR § 214.15(g), included an "age-out" restriction which limited the period of admission, or extension, for a child under a V visa, such that it would expire on the day prior to the child's 21st birthday.

The government moved to dismiss the case, or to transfer venue. That motion was denied. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court (Judge David O. Carter) denied plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment for the government. Akhtar v. Burzynski, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27282 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 21 2002). The plaintiff children appealed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Senior Circuit Judge Browning) reversed and remanded, holding that the INS' interpretation of the age-out provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 214.15(g) was contrary to Congress' intent and frustrated congressional policy. Akhtar v. Burzynski, 384 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2004),

While the Akhtar v. Burzynski decision only invalidated the "age-out" provisions in the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, successor to the INS, subsequently decided to apply Akhtar on a nation-wide basis.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (11/29/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Browning, James Robert (California)

Carter, David O. (California)

Nakazato, Arthur (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Wardlaw, Kim McLane (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Dupont, Robert J. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Hikida, Katherine M. (California)

Weidman, Leon W. (California)

Yang, Deborah W. (California)

Judge(s)

Browning, James Robert (California)

Carter, David O. (California)

Nakazato, Arthur (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Wardlaw, Kim McLane (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Dupont, Robert J. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Hikida, Katherine M. (California)

Weidman, Leon W. (California)

Yang, Deborah W. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Burhan Akhtar v. Michael D. Hestor

Jan. 24, 2005 Docket
14

Minute Order [Denying Motion to Transfer Venue and Denying Motion to Dismiss]

Akhtar v. Heston

July 24, 2002 Order/Opinion
30

Opinion

Akhtar v. Burnzynski

2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27282

Oct. 21, 2002 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Akhtar v. Burnzynski

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

384 F.3d 1193

Oct. 5, 2004 Order/Opinion
49

Order [RE: Further Proceedings]

Jan. 24, 2005 Order/Opinion

Docket

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT filed; 60 days Summons(es) issued referred to Discovery Arthur Nakazato (mt) (Entered: 03/15/2002)

March 7, 2002
2

CERTIFICATION AS TO INTERESTED PARTIES filed by plaintiffs (mt) (Entered: 03/15/2002)

March 7, 2002
3

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by plaintiffs Burhan Akhtar, Rechy Monzon Sese; adding Emerson Angeles. Summons not issued (mg) (Entered: 04/23/2002)

April 16, 2002
4

RETURN OF SUMMONS AND PROOF OF SERVICE executed upon defendant John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States by serving S/C to Laura Villa, Process Clerk; and defendant The INS by serving S/C to Kevin Riley, District Counsel; Service by Federal on 4/10/02 via personal service. Via cert mail to John Ashcroft on 4/4/02; original rtn rct card signed for by Ernest Parker on 4/16/02 is attached (mg) Modified on 05/09/2002 (Entered: 05/09/2002)

May 6, 2002
4

RETURN OF SUMMONS AND PROOF OF SERVICE executed upon defendants Michael D Heston, Director of the INS & James W. Ziglar, Commissioner of the INS; by Federal on 4/4/02 via cert mail by serving S/C. Original rtn rct card addressed to Michael D. Heston, signed for by D. Goss on 4/8/02 is attached. Original rtn rct card addressed to James W. Ziglar, signed for by M. Reed (undated) is attached (mg) (Entered: 05/09/2002)

May 6, 2002
5

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by Federal defendants Michael D Heston, et al to dismiss ; memo of P&A; motion hearing set for 8:30 7/22/02 (mt) (Entered: 06/12/2002)

June 11, 2002
7

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by Federal defendants Michael D Hestor et al, to transfer case to the Western District of Missouri ; memo of P&A with exhibits; motion hearing set for 8:30 7/22/02 (mt) (Entered: 06/25/2002)

June 24, 2002
8

OPPOSITION by plaintiff to motion to transfer case to the Western District of Missouri [7-1] (csb) (Entered: 07/05/2002)

July 3, 2002
9

OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to Dfts' motion to dismiss [5-1]; motion to substitute ptys under FRCP 25(D); memo of P/A; Decl of Robert J Dupont (mg) (Entered: 07/09/2002)

July 3, 2002
10

REPLY BRIEF by Federal defendants re motion to dismiss [5-1] (mt) (Entered: 07/16/2002)

July 15, 2002
11

REPLY BRIEF by Federal defendants re motion to transfer case to the Western District of Missouri [7-1] (mt) (Entered: 07/16/2002)

July 15, 2002
12

MINUTES (In Chambers) by Judge David O. Carter: taking Federal dfts motions to dismiss [5-1] and to transfer case to Western District of Missouri [7-1] under submission. Hrg set for 7/22/02 is removed from the crt's cal. Ptys will be srvd w/the crt's ruling. CR: Not Present (mt) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

July 19, 2002
13

ORDER by Judge David O. Carter setting scheduling conf for 8:30am on 10/7/02 READ IMMEDIATELY (see doc for specifics) (mt) (Entered: 07/25/2002)

July 24, 2002
14

MINUTES (in chambers): denying dfts' motion to transfer case to the Western District of Missouri [7-1] & denying dfts' motion to dismiss [5-1]; plfs' 2nd A/C is ord filed; the ptys shall file any intended motionso for summ jgm w/in 30 days of the date of this ord; by Judge David O. Carter CR: not present (rmi) (Entered: 07/26/2002)

July 24, 2002
15

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [3-1] by plaintiff terminating defendant Michael D Hestor; adding dft James J Burzynski. Summons not issued (mt) (Entered: 07/28/2002)

July 24, 2002
16

NOTICE OF MOTION by plaintiffs Burhan Akhtar, Rechy Monzon Sese, Emerson Angeles for summary judgment ; motion hearing set for 8:30 9/30/02 (yc) (Entered: 08/27/2002)

Aug. 23, 2002
17

DECLARATION of Robert J Dupont by plaintiffs Burhan Akhtar, Rechy Monzon Sese, Emerson Angeles in suppt of motion for summary judgment [16-1] (yc) (Entered: 08/28/2002)

Aug. 23, 2002
18

MEMORANDUM of PA by plaintiffs Burhan Akhtar, Rechy Monzon Sese, Emerson Angeles in support of motion for summary judgment [16-1] (yc) (Entered: 08/28/2002)

Aug. 23, 2002
19

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant James J Burzynski for summary judgment ; motion hearing set for 8:30 9/30/02 (yc) (Entered: 08/28/2002)

Aug. 23, 2002
20

EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by Federal defendants for an order (1) cont 9/30/02 hrgs on plfs' & dfts' mots for S/J; (2) cont FRCP 26(f) conf; Rule 16(b) conf; & ext rule 26(f) rpt filing ddl ; memo of P&A; decls; & exhibits (mt) (Entered: 09/16/2002)

Sept. 12, 2002
21

ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: granting ex parte application for an order (1) cont 9/30/02 hrgs on plfs' & dfts' mots for S/J; (2) cont FRCP 26(f) conf; Rule 16(b) conf; & ext rule 26(f) rpt filing ddl [20-1]; resetting hearing on motion for summary judgment [16-1] and [19-1] to 8:30 10/21/02; mandatory status/scheduling conf cont to 8:30 12/2/02 ; dfts' & plfs' opposition for summ jgm to be filed & served by 10/7/02; dft's & plf's reply to be filed & served by 10/14/02; conf deadline cont to date w/in 30 days after Crt rules on ptys mots; report shall be filed nlt 44 days after Crt's decision on ptys mots; (see doc for fur specifics) (ln) (Entered: 09/17/2002)

Sept. 16, 2002
22

NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION filed by plaintiffs to dft's appl for an ord cont the 9/30/02 hrg on plfs' and dfts' motions for summary judgment (mt) (Entered: 09/20/2002)

Sept. 17, 2002
23

OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to dft's motion for summary judgment [19-1] (mt) (Entered: 10/15/2002)

Oct. 7, 2002
24

STATEMENT disputed facts and conclusions of law by plaintiffs in suppt of plfs' opp to dfts' motion for summary judgment [19-1] (mt) (Entered: 10/15/2002)

Oct. 7, 2002
25

OPPOSITION by defendants to plfs' motion for summary judgment [16-1] (mt) (Entered: 10/15/2002)

Oct. 7, 2002
26

STATEMENT of genuine issues of material fact by defendants (mt) (Entered: 10/15/2002)

Oct. 7, 2002
27

REPLY BRIEF by defendant James J Burzynski (mt) (Entered: 10/21/2002)

Oct. 15, 2002
28

REPLY by plaintiffs in suppt of plf's motion for summary judgment [16-1]; memo of P&A (mt) (Entered: 10/22/2002)

Oct. 15, 2002
31

OBJECTION filed by Federal defendants to plfs' req to submit additional legal materials at the hearing on the parties' motion for summary judgment (mt) (Entered: 10/25/2002)

Oct. 18, 2002
29

JGM GRANTING DFT'S MOT FOR SUMM JGM by Judge David O. Carter: dft's mot having come on regularly for hrg on 10/21/02 & in accordance w/Crt's Ord on 10/21/02, granting dft's motion for summary judgment [19-1]; terminating case (MD JS-6) (see doc for specifics) (ln) (Entered: 10/22/2002)

Oct. 21, 2002
30

ORDER DENYING PLF'S MOT FOR SUMM JGM & GRANTING DFT'S MOT FOR SUMM JGM by Judge David O. Carter: denying plf's motion for summary judgment [16-1], granting dft's cross-motion for summary judgment [19-1] (see doc for fur specifics) (ln) (Entered: 10/22/2002)

Oct. 21, 2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED lodged stmt of U/F & conclusions of law (mt) (Entered: 10/28/2002)

Oct. 21, 2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED lodged prop decl & inj ord of the crt (mt) (Entered: 10/28/2002)

Oct. 21, 2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED lodged plf's separate stmt of U/F & conclusions of law in suppt of ntc of mot & mot for S/J (mt) (Entered: 10/28/2002)

Oct. 21, 2002
32

MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING held by Judge David O. Carter: Tentative ruling issued to cnsl, a copy of which is attached hereto. Motion by Federal dfts for summary judgment [19-1]; motion by plfs for summary judgment [16-1] taken under submission. CR: Jane Sutton (mt) (Entered: 10/29/2002)

Oct. 21, 2002
33

NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff Burhan Akhtar, plaintiff Rechy Monzon Sese, plaintiff Emerson Angeles to 9th C/A from Dist. Court Ord fld 10/21/02 [30-1], Jgm fld 10/21/02 [29-2] (cc: Robert J. Dupont; AUSA ) Fee: Billed (weap) (Entered: 11/25/2002)

Nov. 21, 2002
34

REPRESENTATION STATEMENT re appeal [33-1] (pjap) (Entered: 12/02/2002)

Nov. 21, 2002
35

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and ordering form for dates: 10/21/02 CR: Jane Sutton (dlu) (Entered: 12/03/2002)

Dec. 3, 2002

Appeal Fee Paid re [33-1] fee in amount of $ 105.00 (Receipt # 28209) (dlu) (Entered: 12/09/2002)

Dec. 9, 2002
36

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number appeal [33-1] 02-57037 (weap) (Entered: 12/12/2002)

Dec. 12, 2002
39

EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by plaintiffs to shorten time to 2/3/03 for hearing on motion for stay of adverse administrative actions & injunction against detention & commencement of deportation proceedings pending appeal [37-1] (mg) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

Jan. 30, 2003
40

OPPOSITION by defendants to ex parte application to shorten time to 2/3/03 for hearing on motion for stay of adverse administrative actions & injunction against detention & commencement of deportation proceedings pending appeal [37-1] [39-1] (mg) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

Jan. 30, 2003
37

MOTION by plaintiffs for stay of adverse administrative actions & injunction against detention & commencement of deportation proceedings pending appeal ; motion hearing set for 8:30 2/12/03; Lodged 1/30/03 (mg) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

Feb. 4, 2003
38

NOTICE OF motion to hear Plaintiff's motion for stay of adverse administrative actions & injunction against detention & commencement of proceedings pending appeal [37-1] filed by plaintiffs (mg) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

Feb. 4, 2003
41

MINUTES (In Chambers) by Judge David O. Carter: granting plf Akhtar's ex parte application to shorten time on motion for stay [39-1]; Court GRANTS the application as to plf Akhtar, but DENIES the application as to plfs Sese and Emerson (see doc for specifics); Court sets hearing on plf Akhtar's motion for stay of adverse administrative actions & injunction against detention & commencement of deportation proceedings pending appeal [37-1] for 8:00am on 2/12/03. CR: Not Present (mt) (Entered: 02/05/2003)

Feb. 4, 2003
42

DENIED BY ORDER of Judge David O. Carter: [Proposed] Ord Granting Mot for Stay of Adverse Administrative Actions & Injunction Against Detention and Commencement of Deportation Proceedings Pending Appeal; lodged 01/30/03 (ln) (Entered: 02/13/2003)

Feb. 12, 2003

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Appication to Shorten Time to Hear Plaintiff's Motion (tso) (Entered: 02/16/2003)

Feb. 12, 2003
43

MINUTES of motion hearing heald by Judge David O. Carter: Motion by plf Burhan Akhtar for stay of adverse administrative actions & injunction against detention & commencement of deportation proceedings pending appeal [37-1] is DENIED as premature. Court lacks jurisdiction to decide this matter. CR: Jane Sutton (mt) (Entered: 02/16/2003)

Feb. 12, 2003
44

MANDATE of 9th CCA filed as to Appeal to Circuit Court [33], CCA # 02-57037. The judgment of said district court is reversed and remanded. Mandate received in this district on 12/1/04. (ghap, ) Modified on 12/2/2004 (ghap, ). (Entered: 12/02/2004)

Nov. 29, 2004
46

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by plaintiffs Motion set for hearing on 2/7/2005 at 08:30 AM before Honorable David O. Carter. (dmjr, ) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

Dec. 3, 2004
47

NOTICE of hearing on judgment/mandate/order from US Court of Appeals on 1/24/05 8:30am before Judge Carter (dmjr, ) (Entered: 12/28/2004)

Dec. 28, 2004

Set Hearings: hearing on 9th CCA mandate set for hearing on 1/24/2005 at 08:30 AM before Honorable David O. Carter. (dmjr, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)

Dec. 28, 2004
48

STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Immigration and Naturalization Service, James Ziglar, John Ashcroft, James J Burzynski. (dmjr, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)

Jan. 21, 2005
49

ORDER by Judge David O. Carter re: further proceedings(dmjr, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)

Jan. 24, 2005
50

MINUTES OF Hearing held before Judge David O. Carter order re further proceedings filed:, denying MOTION for Attorney Fees[46] Court Reporter: D Gale/J S Rule. (dmjr, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)

Jan. 24, 2005

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 7, 2002

Closing Date: 2005

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Three non-U.S. Citizens whose families filed I-130 forms on their behalf seeking visas for entry into the United States and who were denied V-Visas by the U.S. INS following their admission to the U.S. and after their 21 birthdays.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

United States Immigration and Naturalization Services, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Family Separation

Temporary protected status

Visas - criteria

Visas - procedures