On October 23, 1991, attorneys for the Farmworker Justice Fund Inc., the National Immigration Law Center, the California Rural Legal Assistance and Legal Services of Northern California filed a class action suit on behalf of immigrant agricultural workers in the U.S. District Court Eastern ...
read more >
On October 23, 1991, attorneys for the Farmworker Justice Fund Inc., the National Immigration Law Center, the California Rural Legal Assistance and Legal Services of Northern California filed a class action suit on behalf of immigrant agricultural workers in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of California to challenge immigration policies which affect immigrants seeking special status under the Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) legalization program. The Special Agricultural Worker program was created by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and allowed undocumented alien farmworkers to attain temporary and then permanent resident status under certain circumstances. The program was amended by the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989 which established, the "one/three rule": mandatory denial or termination of temporary resident status granted under the Special Agricultural Workers legalization program to immigrants convicted of one felony or three misdemeanors. Plaintiffs' lawsuit challenged the INS' interpretation and application of the one/three rule.
The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The District Court (Judge Edward J. Garcia) entered summary judgment for farm workers on some claims, and for INS on other claims. Both parties appealed.
The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court judgment, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' claims. The Court held that Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 provided for judicial review only upon appeal of an order of deportation. The Act did not permit the Court to hear a class action challenging INS regulations. Naranjo-Aguilera v. U.S. I.N.S., 30 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1994).Dan Dalton - 11/06/2007