Case: LULAC v. INS

2:87-cv-04757 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: July 22, 1987

Closed Date: April 25, 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case, Newman v. INS (originally LULAC v. INS) was a companion case to Catholic Social Services v. Reno (IM-CA-11 of this collection). Both cases were filed by attorneys for the Center For Human Rights & Constitutional Law and challenged the INS' interpretation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), which established a one-time only amnesty program through which aliens could apply for lawful temporary resident status. Catholic Social Services v. Reno was filed in Nov…

This case, Newman v. INS (originally LULAC v. INS) was a companion case to Catholic Social Services v. Reno (IM-CA-11 of this collection). Both cases were filed by attorneys for the Center For Human Rights & Constitutional Law and challenged the INS' interpretation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), which established a one-time only amnesty program through which aliens could apply for lawful temporary resident status. Catholic Social Services v. Reno was filed in November 1986 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California and challenged the legality of the "advanced parole" provision of the IRCA. Newman v. INS was subsequently filed in 1987 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It challenged the INS' "facially valid visa" rule. Under that rule, aliens who briefly departed and returned to the U.S., but presented "facially valid" entry documents, were denied participation in the amnesty program and had their applications for legalization summarily denied. Another related case, Zambrano v. INS [IM-CA-8], was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in 1988 and challenged certain INS regulations which interpreted the IRCA.

Like the Catholic Social Services case, Newman v. INS was litigated for over 20 years and produced a complicated procedural history of appeals to and remands from the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court. On several occasions, both cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal.

In Newman, the District Court (William D. Keller) initially struck down the "facially valid visa" rule and ordered the INS to allow individual class members additional time to refile legalization papers. The INS appealed and the Newman and CSS cases were consolidated and affirmed on appeal. Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 956 F.2d 914 (1992) . The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case as it determined that some of the class members' claims were not ripe. The Court found that some class members had ripe claims, particularly those individuals whose applications had been summarily rejected by an INS legalization assistant due to perceived violations of the challenged travel regulation. (Rejection of the applications outright was known as "front-desking.") Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., 509 U.S. 43 (1993).

After the case was remanded to the District Court, Congress amended the immigration laws by enacting the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. A provision of that Act sought to limit court review of legalization claims. The INS maintained that the Act deprived the courts of jurisdiction in the Newman and Catholic Social Services cases. The Ninth Circuit held that the District Court had no jurisdiction in the Catholic Social Services case, Catholic Social Services v. Reno, 134 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 1998), but declined to dismiss the Newman case, Newman v. INS, 141 F.3d 1178. (9th Cir. 1998).

On July 2, 1999, the District Court (Judge Keller) issued a permanent injunction in the Newman case which required the INS to accept and process legalization applications from "front-desked" class members. Judge Keller, however, dismissed the claims of the "constructively front-desked" applicants. Both parties appealed. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's injunction, but reversed and remanded the case to the extent that the Court had dismissed the claims of the "constructively front-desked" applicants. Newman v. INS, 33 Fed.Appx. 328(9th Cir. 2001).

Settlement discussions soon followed and an agreement was reached in late 2003 in the both the Newman and Catholic Social Services cases. On February 18, 2004, District Judge Keller approved the Newman settlement, which allowed class members to apply for permanent resident status under the amnesty program beginning about March 2004. For the full settlement terms, see the Court's Order Approving Settlement of Class Action, which is part of the document collection for this case. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs $1,900,000 in full settlement of all claims they had for attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 25, 2007, in accordance with the settlement agreement, Judge dismissed the case and dissolved any injunctive orders and other decisions previously entered.

Summary Authors

Miles Chan (8/5/2007)

Related Cases

Catholic Social Services v. Ashcroft, Eastern District of California (1986)

Zambrano v. INS, Eastern District of California (1988)

People


Judge(s)

Goodwin, Alfred Theodore (California)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Nevada)

Keller, William Duffy (California)

Pregerson, Harry (California)

Sneed, Joseph Tyree III (California)

Souter, David Hackett (District of Columbia)

Weiner, Charles R. (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Holguín, Carlos R. (California)

Junowicz, Miranda D (California)

Judge(s)

Goodwin, Alfred Theodore (California)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Nevada)

Keller, William Duffy (California)

Pregerson, Harry (California)

Sneed, Joseph Tyree III (California)

Souter, David Hackett (District of Columbia)

Weiner, Charles R. (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Holguín, Carlos R. (California)

Junowicz, Miranda D (California)

Kim, Deborah K. (California)

Kwoh, Stewart (California)

Lim, Deborah K. (California)

Mann, Ronald J. (District of Columbia)

Schey, Peter A. (California)

Song, Charles (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Abascal, Ralph Santiago (California)

Norwood, Anthony W. (District of Columbia)

Raymond, Robert R. (District of Columbia)

Van Der Hout, Marc (California)

Weidman, Leon W. (California)

Wu, George H. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

May 21, 2007 Docket

Opinion

1989 WL 252578

Aug. 12, 1989 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Reno v. Catholic Social Services

Supreme Court of the United States

509 U.S. 43, 113 S.Ct. 2485

June 18, 1993 Order/Opinion

Order

LULCA v. I.N.S.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

999 F.2d 1362

July 7, 1993 Order/Opinion

Memorandum

Newman v. I.N.S.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

141 F.3d 1178

March 24, 1998 Order/Opinion

Order

Newman v. I.N.S.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

33 Fed.Appx. 328

April 3, 2002 Order/Opinion

Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action

Newman v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

July 9, 2003 Notice Letter
346

Order Approving Settlement of Class Action

Newman v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service

Feb. 18, 2004 Settlement Agreement

Resources

Title Description External URL

The Oyez Project, Reno, Attorney General v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993).

Oyez Project

Information about the Supreme Court litigation in this case, including audio recording of the oral argument, and the written opinion. June 18, 1993 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1826/

Docket

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

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 22, 1987

Closing Date: April 25, 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All aliens whose applications for legalization through the amnesty program of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 were denied because of the INS’ “facially valid visa” rule.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Immigration and Naturalization Services, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2004 - 2007

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Admission - criteria

Admission - procedure

Constitutional rights

Legalization/Amnesty

Temporary protected status

Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties

U.S. citizenship - acquiring

Visas - criteria

Visas - procedures