University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Dayo v. Napolitano IM-CA-0069
Docket / Court 2:11-cv-00728 ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration
Case Summary
On January 1, 2011, immigrants whose work authorization was denied filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, claimed that USCIS had unlawfully ... read more >
On January 1, 2011, immigrants whose work authorization was denied filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, claimed that USCIS had unlawfully found plaintiffs ineligible for employment authorization based on the erroneous determination that their adjustment applications were no longer pending at the time employment authorization was sought. Further, plaintiffs alleged that the immigration court was not providing them with evidence that demonstrated that they had renewed their adjustment of status applications in removal proceedings. Plaintiffs sought class certification and injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief. In an amended complaint, plaintiffs added the Executive Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR") as a defendant.

Each named plaintiff was a beneficiary of an I-140 immigrant visa petition based on employment (or status as a spouse) and had applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident (I-485). USCIS denied the adjustment applications, and each plaintiff was consequently placed in removal proceedings. In those removal proceedings, each plaintiff renewed his adjustment application and filed an application for employment authorization (I-765) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ยง 274a.12(c)(9). USCIS denied their employment authorization applications, finding that plaintiffs' adjustment applications were no longer pending despite the renewal of said applications in the removal proceedings.

Plaintiffs sought (1) to compel USCIS to interpret Section 274a.12(c)(9) to mean that adjustment of status applications filed during removal proceedings count as pending before the immigration grant; and (2) to compel EOIR to issue some type of confirmatory receipts to individuals who have renewed adjustment applications, so that individuals could prove they have renewed their adjustment applications when seeking employment authorization.

On August 9, 2012, the District Court (Judge George H. Wu) dismissed the case pursuant to a settlement agreement. The settlement stipulated that USCIS recognizes that adjustment of status application properly renewed with the immigration court by an alien in removal proceedings constituted a "pending" application for purposes of renewing employment authorization. The defendants denied all liability and the individual named plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Since the settlement, court activity has continued. On April 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. On May 20, 2013, they withdrew the motion.

Jennifer Bronson - 10/06/2013


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
General
Records Disclosure
Immigration
Deportation - procedure
Work authorization - procedures
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Defendant(s) Executive Office for Immigration Review
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are aliens in removal proceedings, who renewed their adjustment of status application in removal proceedings and who were denied employment authorization by USCIS.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Moot
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2013 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:11−cv−00728 (C.D. Cal.) 05/20/2013
IM-CA-0069-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release 08/01/2012
IM-CA-0069-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Proceedings: Application for Settlement Approval 08/09/2012 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0069-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Hillman, Stephen J. (C.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0069-9000
Wu, George H. (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0069-0001 | IM-CA-0069-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Sturman, David M (California)
IM-CA-0069-0001 | IM-CA-0069-0002 | IM-CA-0069-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0069-0002
Hildebrand, Regan (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0069-0001 | IM-CA-0069-0002 | IM-CA-0069-9000
Stevens, Elizabeth Jones (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0069-0002
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -