University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Akhtar v. Burzynski IM-CA-0005
Docket / Court 02-245 ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration
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 ... read more >
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.

Dan Dalton - 11/29/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Immigration
Constitutional rights
Family
Temporary protected status
Visas - criteria
Visas - procedures
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Bivens
Defendant(s) United States Immigration and Naturalization Services
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.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2005
Case Ongoing No
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)
8:02-cv-00245-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal.) 01/24/2005
IM-CA-0005-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Minute Order [Denying Motion to Transfer Venue and Denying Motion to Dismiss] 07/24/2002 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0005-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 10/21/2002 (2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27282) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0005-0004.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Opinion 10/05/2004 (384 F.3d 1193)
IM-CA-0005-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order [RE: Further Proceedings] 01/24/2005 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0005-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Browning, James Robert (Ninth Circuit)
IM-CA-0005-0003
Carter, David O. (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0005-0001 | IM-CA-0005-0002 | IM-CA-0005-0004 | IM-CA-0005-9000
Nakazato, Arthur (C.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0005-9000
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (Ninth Circuit)
IM-CA-0005-0003
Wardlaw, Kim McLane (Ninth Circuit, C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0005-0003
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Dupont, Robert J. (California)
IM-CA-0005-0002 | IM-CA-0005-0003 | IM-CA-0005-0004 | IM-CA-0005-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Hikida, Katherine M. (California)
IM-CA-0005-0002 | IM-CA-0005-0003 | IM-CA-0005-0004 | IM-CA-0005-9000
Weidman, Leon W. (California)
IM-CA-0005-0002 | IM-CA-0005-0003 | IM-CA-0005-0004
Yang, Deborah W. (California)
IM-CA-0005-0002 | IM-CA-0005-0003 | IM-CA-0005-0004
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -