Case: Aparcio v. Blakeway

5:00-cv-00434 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Filed Date: April 14, 2000

Closed Date: 2002

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 14, 2000, three Mexican nationals who had applied for naturalization filed a class-action lawsuit against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the INS improperly used and relied upon confidential information taken from their prior applications made in the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160 et seq. Under the SAW program, seasonal agricultural workers could apply for "tempora…

On April 14, 2000, three Mexican nationals who had applied for naturalization filed a class-action lawsuit against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the INS improperly used and relied upon confidential information taken from their prior applications made in the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160 et seq.

Under the SAW program, seasonal agricultural workers could apply for "temporary resident" immigration status during a specified eighteen-month period if they could prove both that they had resided in the U.S. and had performed "seasonal agricultural services" in the U.S. for at least 90 days during the period from May 1, 1985 to May 1, 1986. Thereafter, the temporary resident workers would automatically receive permanent resident status after a period of one or two years. The SAW program established that any information provided in the SAW application would be treated as confidential and could not be used by the INS in other proceedings.

Plaintiffs claimed that the government violated the confidentiality provision of the SAW program when Plaintiffs applied for naturalization years after applying for the SAW program. Each claimed that during their naturalization application process, the INS quizzed them extensively about their SAW status and reviewed confidential information from their SAW applications.

After filing the initial action, Plaintiffs moved for class certification and requested a preliminary injunction. The government moved to dismiss the case.

On August 31, 2000, the District Court (Judge Samuel Fred Biery, Jr.) granted the government's motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs' request for class certification and preliminary injunction. The Court determined that the plaintiffs' claims were unripe because they had not exhausted the statutory appeal procedures before filing suit. Plaintiffs appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2002).

Summary Authors

Stephen Imm (8/14/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Biery, Samuel Frederick Jr. (Texas)

DeMoss, Harold R. Jr. (Texas)

Dennis, Don C (Texas)

Garwood, William Lockhart (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Kenney, Mary A (Texas)

Other Attorney(s)

Active

Active

Active

Active

Active

Judge(s)

Biery, Samuel Frederick Jr. (Texas)

DeMoss, Harold R. Jr. (Texas)

Dennis, Don C (Texas)

Garwood, William Lockhart (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Kenney, Mary A (Texas)

Other Attorney(s)

Fischer, Robert Sheldon (Texas)

Garcia, Carmen Ilene (Texas)

Hines, Barbara (Texas)

Paniszczyn, John Francis (District of Columbia)

Reyna, Nelda C. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

00-51133

Appellate Docket (PACER)

Aparicio v. Blakeway

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Sept. 1, 2000

Sept. 1, 2000

Docket

5:00-cv-00434

Docket (PACER)

Aparicio v. Blakeway

Oct. 28, 2002

Oct. 28, 2002

Docket

00-51133

Opinion

Aparicio v. Blakeway

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

302 F.3d 437, 302 U.S.App.LEXIS 16483

Aug. 15, 2002

Aug. 15, 2002

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 9, 2022, 3:14 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Case assigned to Honorable Fred Biery (sj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

April 14, 2000

April 14, 2000

1

Complaint filed. Filing Fee: $ 150.00 Receipt # 162555 (Pages: 18) (sj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

April 14, 2000

April 14, 2000

2

Motion by Javier Aparicio for preliminary injunction (sj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

April 14, 2000

April 14, 2000

3

Memorandum by Javier Aparicio in support of motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] (sj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

April 14, 2000

April 14, 2000

4

Motion by Javier Aparicio with memorandum in support for class certification (fe) (Entered: 04/27/2000)

April 26, 2000

April 26, 2000

5

Notice of attorney appearance for Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. by John F. Paniszczyn, Nelda C. Reyna (rg) (Entered: 05/11/2000)

May 10, 2000

May 10, 2000

5

Motion by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. request that court and plaintiff serve two attorneys for the defendants , and to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal (rg) (Entered: 05/11/2000)

May 10, 2000

May 10, 2000

6

Order granting motion request that court and plaintiff serve two attorneys for the defendants [5-1], granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal [5-2] (rg) (Entered: 05/22/2000)

May 19, 2000

May 19, 2000

7

Motion by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. for protective order , and/or to quash the deposition of Wiley Blakeway (fe) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

May 25, 2000

May 25, 2000

8

Response by Javier Aparicio motion for protective order [7-1], motion to quash the deposition of Wiley Blakeway [7-2] (rg) (Entered: 06/01/2000)

May 31, 2000

May 31, 2000

9

Order granting motion for protective order [7-1], granting motion to quash the deposition of Wiley Blakeway [7-2] (rg) (Entered: 06/05/2000)

June 2, 2000

June 2, 2000

10

Reply by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. to response to motion for protective order [7-1], motion to quash the deposition of Wiley Blakeway [7-2] (rg) (Entered: 06/05/2000)

June 2, 2000

June 2, 2000

11

First Amended complaint by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola, amending complaint [1-1] ) (rg) (Entered: 06/06/2000)

June 5, 2000

June 5, 2000

12

Motion by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint (rg) (Entered: 06/07/2000)

June 6, 2000

June 6, 2000

12

Response by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] (rg) (Entered: 06/07/2000)

June 6, 2000

June 6, 2000

13

Recommendations for scheduling order by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola (rg) (Entered: 06/14/2000)

June 13, 2000

June 13, 2000

14

Unopposed Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola to extend time to respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)

June 15, 2000

June 15, 2000

14

Response by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)

June 15, 2000

June 15, 2000

15

Notice of filing notice to the court of proof of service of complaint by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)

June 15, 2000

June 15, 2000

17

Return of service executed as to I.N.S. on 4/19/00 by serving the Attorney General Janet Reno, using certified mail (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)

June 15, 2000

June 15, 2000

18

Return of service executed as to I.N.S. on 4/20/00 by using certified mail (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)

June 15, 2000

June 15, 2000

19

Return of service executed as to Kenneth G. Pasquarell on 4/19/00 by using certified mail (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)

June 15, 2000

June 15, 2000

20

Return of service executed as to Wiley Blakeway on 4/19/00 by using certified mail (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)

June 15, 2000

June 15, 2000

21

Order granting motion to extend time to respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss on or before 6/27/00 [14-1] (rg) (Entered: 06/21/2000)

June 20, 2000

June 20, 2000

22

Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendants' exhibit 1 (rg) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

June 27, 2000

June 27, 2000

23

Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola for leave to file a response brief in excess of 10 pages (rg) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

June 27, 2000

June 27, 2000

24

Reply by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. to response to motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint [12-1] (rg) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

July 21, 2000

July 21, 2000

25

Response by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendants' exhibit 1 [22-1] (kc) (Entered: 07/27/2000)

July 26, 2000

July 26, 2000

26

Unopposed Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola for leave to file a reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendant's exhibit 1 (rg) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

Aug. 2, 2000

Aug. 2, 2000

27

Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendant's exhibit 1 [26-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/07/2000)

Aug. 4, 2000

Aug. 4, 2000

28

Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola for leave to file a surreply to defendants' motion to dismiss (rg) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

Aug. 7, 2000

Aug. 7, 2000

Received plaintiff's surreply to defendants' motion to dismiss (rg) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

Aug. 7, 2000

Aug. 7, 2000

29

Reply by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola to response to motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendants' exhibit 1 [22-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/09/2000)

Aug. 8, 2000

Aug. 8, 2000

30

Order granting motion for leave to file a response brief in excess of 10 pages [23-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/25/2000)

Aug. 24, 2000

Aug. 24, 2000

31

Order granting motion for leave to file a surreply to defendants' motion to dismiss [28-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/25/2000)

Aug. 24, 2000

Aug. 24, 2000

32

Surreply by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint [12-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/25/2000)

Aug. 24, 2000

Aug. 24, 2000

33

Order dismissing as moot motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendants' exhibit 1 [22-1], granting motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint [12-1], denying motion for class certification [4-1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] (rg) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

Aug. 31, 2000

Aug. 31, 2000

34

JUDGMENT for Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. against Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this cause is DISMISSED. (Pages: 1) (rg) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

Aug. 31, 2000

Aug. 31, 2000

Case closed (rg) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

Aug. 31, 2000

Aug. 31, 2000

35

Opposed Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola for leave to file second amended complaint (rg) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

Aug. 31, 2000

Aug. 31, 2000

Mooted motion for leave to file second amended complaint [35-1] (rg) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

Aug. 31, 2000

Aug. 31, 2000

36

Notice of appeal by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola (lp) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

Oct. 27, 2000

Oct. 27, 2000

USCA appeal fees paid for appeal [36-1] : Appeal Fee: $ 105.00 Receipt # 165804 (lp) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

Oct. 30, 2000

Oct. 30, 2000

Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: appeal [36-1] (lp) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

Oct. 30, 2000

Oct. 30, 2000

Certified and transmitted record on appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals: appeal [36-1] (lp) (Entered: 11/09/2000)

Nov. 9, 2000

Nov. 9, 2000

Return of appeal information sheet received. appeal [36-1] USCA NUMBER: 00-51133 (lp) (Entered: 11/13/2000)

Nov. 13, 2000

Nov. 13, 2000

38

Certified copy of judgment of USCA affirming appeal [36-1] (lp) (Entered: 10/15/2002)

Oct. 15, 2002

Oct. 15, 2002

Record on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeal : appeal [36-1] (lp) (Entered: 10/28/2002)

Oct. 28, 2002

Oct. 28, 2002

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 14, 2000

Closing Date: 2002

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Class of persons who received permanent resident status through the SAW program and who had applied for or would apply for naturalization through the San Antonio INS office.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

Immigration and Naturalization Service, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Admission - criteria

Constitutional rights

Employment

Status/Classification

Temporary foreign workers program

U.S. citizenship - acquiring

Work authorization - procedures