University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Ayuda, Inc. v. Reno IM-DC-0003
Docket / Court 88-CV-00625 ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Immigration
Attorney Organization Washington Lawyers' Committee
Case Summary
Plaintiffs, who were nonimmigrant aliens and organizations whose primary function was to provide immigration counseling, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the legalization or "amnesty" provisions of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA" ... read more >
Plaintiffs, who were nonimmigrant aliens and organizations whose primary function was to provide immigration counseling, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the legalization or "amnesty" provisions of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"). Specifically, plaintiffs complain that government did not take any other evidence into account, such as Social Security Administration records, Internal Revenue Service records to satisfy "unlawful status known to government". Ayuda Inc. v. Meese. 687 F. Supp. 651. (District of D.C., 1988). Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit, also alleging that defendants' interpretative regulation is contrary to the plain meaning of statute, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting narrow construction of statutory language. The case was heard in the District Court of D.C. The case was assigned to Honorable Judge Stanley Sporkin.

The Court ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to bring case to court, stating that organizational plaintiffs' interests were within zone of protected interests by statutory provision in question, as ordained by Congress. Court also reasoned that plaintiffs passed satisfied standard for injunctive relief, citing "irreparable damage that would occur" if statute was not enjoined. Thus, on March 30, 1988, the Court granted a motion for Declaratory Judgment, declaring INS regulation to be contrary to the law. The Court enjoined the INS from any further application of the law, while maintaining jurisdiction so that the decree would be fully carried out to provide further relief. Several supplemental orders were issued as well, further enjoining the Immigration and Naturalization Service from implementing the statute.

On October 28, 1988, Judge Sporkin issued Supplemental Order XII, which maintained that the Court had power to extend a statutory deadline and determine, to what extent persons may have been prejudiced or harmed by the government's application of the erroneous regulation under IRCA. The Court concluded that exceptional circumstances existed to appoint a Special Master, under Rule 53 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to determine what plaintiffs or persons may have been denied benefits from an order on March 30, 1988. Specifically, the Court ordered Irving M. Pollack to be appointed Lead Special Master.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit, seeking a writ of mandamus. The case was assigned to Honorable Judges Harold H. Greene, Abner J. Mikva, and Patricia M. Wald. The Court ruled on March 3, 1989, that (1) the case in previous posture did not clearly fail to present case or controversy, (2) the district court's continued exercise of jurisdiction did not violate judicial review provisions of IRCA, and (3) the case law preventing equitable tolling of the application deadline did not absolutely preclude any and all relief that the district court might order after receiving the special master's report, thereby giving no justification for the writ of mandamus. The Court did not find "clear and indisputable" lack of jurisdiction in the district court to explore further relief for late-filing aliens.

On April 4, 1989, the District Court of D.C. ruled that because the Government's position in underlying litigation was not "substantially justified" under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412, plaintiffs were entitled to recover fees and expenses. Costs were granted in amount of $1,154.90 to the lawyers for Ayuda, Inc. and fellow plaintiffs.

Immigration and Naturalization Service again appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the injunctive and declaratory order of the District Court of D.C. The Court reasoned on June 18, 1989, that "time pressures and risks to aliens involved in IRCA do not give a district court - any more than they would give a court of appeals - the power to preempt the administrative authority of the INS and direct the legalization program from the bench". The Court also stated that the case was not ripe enough to make any ruling. 880 F.2d. 1345. (D.C. Circuit 1989). Justice Silberman dissented, arguing that neither the IRCA's judicial review provisions, nor ripeness or standing doctrine precluded the district court's exercise of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331.

More than a year would pass before a challenge was brought against tje Immigration and Naturalization Service, challenging refusal to grant temporary work authorization to aliens who entered the country illegally but claimed eligibility for legalization or amnesty under IRCA. Specifically, aliens sought the ability to work while the Supreme Court decided on granting a writ of certiorari. On September 6, 1990, the Court held that the INS was required to issue the authorization with the understanding that it could contest determination of individual eligibility before the court. The Court ordered that INS grant a work authorization, while maintaining jurisdiction over case.

Immigration and Naturalization Service would then appeal for a motion for stay in the Circuit Court of D.C. The Court ruled that the appellants demonstrated satisfaction of standards necessary for a stay pending appeal on November 13, 1990. The case was heard before Judges Wald, Henderson, and Edwards. Judge Henderson also reasoned that stare decisis required the Circuit Court to rule in favor of a stay. Judge Wald dissented in part, and concurred in part.

On February 25, 1991, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, vacating the judgment of the lower court, and remanding the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit argued the case on May 16, 1991. On remand, the case was consolidated with other related cases on appeal from decision from a decision of United States District Court. The case was heard before Honorable Judges Douglas H. Ginsburg, Laurence H. Silberman, and Patricia M. Wald. Court held that the District Court "was without jurisdiction to issue Supplemental Order V and to order interim injunctive relief in plaintiffs' suit to extend the filing deadline" and stated that the plaintiff's appeal of the district court's motion for contempt was moot. Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 948 F.2d. 742. (D.C. Circuit 1991). The Court also ruled that the exception to statutory review provisions recognized under recent the Supreme Court decision was limited strictly to collateral procedural challenges to legalization process, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear claims as to INS' interpretation of IRCA provision which were not final or ripe. Justice Wald filed a dissenting opinion, stating that the interpretation of statute was incorrect, and that the McNary case dealt with generalized challenges, not specific ones such as Ayuda, Inc.

The appellees, Ayuda, Inc., then filed for rehearing en banc. The case was heard before Honorable Judges James L. Buckley, Harry T. Edwards, Ruth B. Ginsburg, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Karen L. Henderson, Abner J. Mikva, Arthur R. Raymond, David B. Sentelle, Lauren H. Silberman, Patricia M. Wald, Stephen F. Williams. The taking of a vote then ensued, with a majority of judges denying motion for rehearing. The en banc Court then ordered that the motion be denied on March 3, 1992.

Petitioners Ayuda Inc. then appealed Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, which the Court granted. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for further consideration on June 28, 1993.

The case was then heard before Circuit Court Judges D.H. Ginsburg, Wald, and Silberman on January 27, 1993. The Court ruled that the District Court again lacked jurisdiction to issue Supplemental Order V and to order INS to grant work authorization to aliens who failed to file deadline applications before May 4, 1988. The Court also ruled that organizational plaintiffs lacked to standing to challenge the statute. Judge Wald again dissented.

On January 27, 1994, Ayuda, Inc. appealed for rehearing en banc. The case was heard before Judges Mikva, Wald, Edwards, Silberman, Buckley, Williams, Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, and Randolph. The Court denied the suggestion.

Attorney General then moved for return of attorney's fees and costs awarded to immigrant rights organizations challenging Immigration and Naturalization Service. The case was heard in the District Court of D.C. by Judge Sporkin. The Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide whether interim attorney's fees and costs should be returned. Case was heard on May 10, 1995.

On September 6, 1996, before Judges Silberman, Williams, and Ginsburg, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. The Circuit ordered that the motion to withdraw appeal be granted. The Court also ordered that the case be remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint and to vacate all remaining orders and injunctions.

Stephen Imm - 08/31/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Immigration
Admission - criteria
U.S. citizenship - acquiring
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)
Defendant(s) United States
Plaintiff Description Non-immigrant aliens and organizations whose prime function is to perform immigration counseling challenging regulations by INS.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Washington Lawyers' Committee
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Defendant
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 1996
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)
88-5226 (U.S. Court of Appeals) 10/08/1993
IM-DC-0003-9001 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
89-5301 (U.S. Court of Appeals) 10/08/1993
IM-DC-0003-9002 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
90-5293 (U.S. Court of Appeals) 10/08/1993
IM-DC-0003-9004 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
88-CV-00625-SS (U.S. Court of Appeals) 09/06/1996
IM-DC-0003-9003 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
88-CV-00625-SS (D.D.C.) 03/27/1997
IM-DC-0003-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Opinion 03/30/1988 (687 F.Supp. 650) (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0003-0002 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 09/27/1988 (700 F.Supp. 49) (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0003-0008 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 03/03/1989 (869 F.2d 1503)
IM-DC-0003-0010 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 04/04/1989 (1989 WL 38951) (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0003-0012 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Opinion 07/18/1989 (880 F.2d 1325)
IM-DC-0003-0003 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 09/06/1990 (744 F.Supp. 21) (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0003-0006 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 11/13/1990 (919 F.2d 153)
IM-DC-0003-0007 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 02/25/1991 (498 U.S. 1117)
IM-DC-0003-0014 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion 11/05/1991 (948 F.2d 742)
IM-DC-0003-0004 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 03/03/1992 (958 F.2d 1089)
IM-DC-0003-0005 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 06/28/1993 (509 U.S. 916)
IM-DC-0003-0015 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion 10/26/1993 (7 F.3d 246)
IM-DC-0003-0001 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 01/27/1994 (14 F.3d 61)
IM-DC-0003-0011 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 10/03/1994 (513 U.S. 815)
IM-DC-0003-0016 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion 05/10/1995 (885 F.Supp. 15) (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0003-0009 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 09/06/1996 (1996 WL 587544)
IM-DC-0003-0013 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Judges Buckley, James Lane (D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0011
Edwards, Harry Thomas (D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0007 | IM-DC-0003-0011
Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0001 | IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0011 | IM-DC-0003-0013
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0005
Greene, Harold H. (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0003-0010
Henderson, Karen LeCraft (D.S.C., D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0007 | IM-DC-0003-0011
Mikva, Abner Joseph (D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0010 | IM-DC-0003-0011
Randolph, Arthur Raymond (D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0011
Sentelle, David Bryan (W.D.N.C., D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0011
Silberman, Laurence Hirsch (D.C. Circuit, FISCR)
IM-DC-0003-0001 | IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0011 | IM-DC-0003-0013
Sporkin, Stanley (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0006 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-0012 | IM-DC-0003-9000
Wald, Patricia McGowan (D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0001 | IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0007 | IM-DC-0003-0010 | IM-DC-0003-0011
Williams, Stephen Fain (D.C. Circuit)
IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0011 | IM-DC-0003-0013
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Allen, Paul Shearman (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-9000
Berzon, Stephen P. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0010
Boggs, Roderic Van Oesen (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-9003
Bolton, John R. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9002 | IM-DC-0003-9004
Carrasco, Gilbert P. (New York)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0012
Cutler, Lloyd N. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0010
Gerson, Stuart M. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005
Guttentag, Lucas (New York)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0012
Kapoyos, Yanti (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002
Kendall, Robert Jr. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9002 | IM-DC-0003-9004
Kurzban, Ira J. (Florida)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0012
Matelski, Wayne H. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-0010 | IM-DC-0003-0012 | IM-DC-0003-9000 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9002 | IM-DC-0003-9003 | IM-DC-0003-9004
Pelta, Eleanor (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0012
Plaza, Eva M. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0012
Plutkin, Robert Harlis (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-0012 | IM-DC-0003-9000
Preston, Stephen W. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0010
Rubin, Michael (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0010
Sanders, Deborah F. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0010 | IM-DC-0003-0012
Valenstein, Carl (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0012
Waller, Carolyn (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-0010 | IM-DC-0003-0012 | IM-DC-0003-9000 | IM-DC-0003-9003
Webber, Richard John (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-0010 | IM-DC-0003-9000 | IM-DC-0003-9003
Wilkinson, Sandra (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-0012 | IM-DC-0003-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Aronofsky, David (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0012 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9002 | IM-DC-0003-9004
Billings, David M. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005
Cohen, Edward R. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0010
Herwig, Barbara L. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0010
Keener, Donald E. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-0012 | IM-DC-0003-9000 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9002 | IM-DC-0003-9003 | IM-DC-0003-9004
Kline, David J. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0009 | IM-DC-0003-9000 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9002 | IM-DC-0003-9004
Pazar, Charles (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0012
Robinson, Michael Eugene (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-9003
Rubin, Michael (California)
IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9002 | IM-DC-0003-9003 | IM-DC-0003-9004
Singer, Michael Jay (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-9003
Stephens, Jay B. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0008
Other Lawyers Strom, Cordia A. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0009
Zengerle, Lynda S. (District of Columbia)
IM-DC-0003-0002 | IM-DC-0003-0003 | IM-DC-0003-0004 | IM-DC-0003-0005 | IM-DC-0003-0008 | IM-DC-0003-0010 | IM-DC-0003-0012 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9001 | IM-DC-0003-9002 | IM-DC-0003-9003 | IM-DC-0003-9004

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -