University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Immigrant Assistance Project of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS IM-WA-0009
Docket / Court 2:88-cv-00379-JLR ( W.D. Wash. )
State/Territory Washington
Case Type(s) Immigration
Case Summary
On March 24, 1988, individual nonimmigrant aliens and various immigration rights organizations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging certain INS policies and regulations relating to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). ... read more >
On March 24, 1988, individual nonimmigrant aliens and various immigration rights organizations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging certain INS policies and regulations relating to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Specifically, plaintiffs challenged the interpretation of the requirement that to qualify for legalization under the IRCA the nonimmigrant must have lived continuously and unlawfully in the U.S. since January 1, 1982, and that their unlawful status was "known to the government."

The IRCA established a one-time only amnesty program through which aliens could apply for lawful temporary resident status and then, after a one-year waiting period, apply for permanent residency. 8 U.S.C. §1255a. To qualify for this program, the alien must have (1) applied for such adjustment within the 12-month period between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988; (2) lived continuously and unlawfully in the U.S. since January 1, 1982 with their unlawful status "known to the government"; and (3) been continuously physically present in the United States except for ''brief, casual, and innocent absences,'' since November 6, 1986.

Plaintiffs challenged the INS' regulations 8 C.F.R. §§ 245a.1(d), 245a.2(b) (1992) which interpreted the IRCA's "continuous unlawful residence since 1982" and "known to the government" requirements. Plaintiffs alleged that the regulations violated the plain meaning of the IRCA, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs sought class certification and declaratory and injunctive relief. They were represented by attorneys with various advocacy groups, including the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, as well as private counsel.

This case was one of several major lawsuits filed throughout the country, challenging different policies and practices used by the INS to implement the IRCA amnesty program. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a. See Ayuda, Inc. v. Meese, No. 1:88-cv-00625-SS (D.D.C.) [IM-DC-0003]; Catholic Soc. Servs. v. Attorney General, No. 2:86-cv-01343-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal.) [IM-CA-0011]; Zambrano v. INS, No. 2:88-cv-00455-EJG-PAN (E.D. Cal.) [IM-CA-0008] and League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. INS, No. 2:87-cv-04757-WDK-CW (C.D. Cal.) [IM-CA-0019].

Like the other cases challenging the INS' interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1255a, this case resulted in litigation which spanned over a decade and produced a very complicated procedural history of appeals and remands from the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court. A brief synopsis of that history follows.

On August 29, 1988, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which the INS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court granted the motion as to the individual plaintiffs, but denied it as to the organizational plaintiffs, finding that they had standing in the case in that they alleged the challenged regulations impaired their goals of helping immigrants and caused a financial burden on their resources. Class certification was denied.

On March 7, 1989, the District Court (Chief Judge Barbara J. Rothstein) granted in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, dismissed certain plaintiffs from the case and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Court declared that the regulations were unlawful and issued an injunction, which was narrower than requested by plaintiffs. Immigration Assistance Project of the L.A. Cnty. Fed'n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 709 F. Supp. 998 (W.D. Wash. 1989). The judgment was amended on June 3, 1989, see Immigration Assistance Project of the L.A. Cnty. Fed'n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 717 F.Supp. 1444 (W.D. Wash.1989); affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Ninth Circuit, see Legalization Assistance Project of the L.A. Cnty. Fed'n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 976 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1992); and vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312 (1993), and Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U. S. 43 (1993) [IM-CA-0011], see INS v. Legalization Assistance Project of the L.A. Cnty. Fed'n of Labor, 510 U.S. 1007 (1993).

On remand, the plaintiffs sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which again sought class certification and declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court preliminarily certified the case as a class action, and entered a TRO. A series of orders and appeals followed. (See Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. Cnty. Fed'n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002), for a more detailed procedural history). Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's reinstatement of its class certification order and its modified reinstatement of its TRO. Id. The case was remanded to allow plaintiffs to amend the complaint to cure any jurisdictional and venue defects.

After five more years of litigation, the case was settled. Simply stated, the settlement allowed certain individuals, who were turned away when they attempted to apply for legalization or "amnesty" under the Immigration to Reform and Control Act of 1986, to apply for legalization. The settlement also allowed certain individuals who had filed applications and whose applications had been denied to move to reopen their applications with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). Under the settlement, the parties agreed to class certification. The requirements for class membership were quite complex, and prospective class members were required to fill out a detailed Class Member Worksheet. A copy of the Stipulation for Settlement and its attachments is part of the collection of documents we have for this case.

The District Court (Judge James L. Robart) approved the settlement, along with attorney's fees and costs, on September 9, 2008.

Christopher Schad - 06/22/2012


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Immigration
Admission - criteria
Admission - procedure
Constitutional rights
Legalization/Amnesty
Status/Classification
Temporary protected status
U.S. citizenship - acquiring
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)
Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Defendant(s) Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS)
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Plaintiff Description All persons who entered the United States in a non-immigrant status prior to January 1, 1982, who are otherwise prima facie eligible for legalization under § 245A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1255a.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2008 - n/a
Case Closing Year 2008
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-cv-00379-JLR (W.D. Wash.) 09/09/2008
IM-WA-0009-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Opinion 03/27/1989 (709 F.Supp. 998) (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0009-0014 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 06/09/1989 (717 F.Supp. 1444) (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0009-0015 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
[Ninth Circuit] Opinion [Affirming in Part and Reversing in Part the District Court's Order] 09/18/1992 (976 F.2d 1198)
IM-WA-0009-0003 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
[Chambers] Opinion [of Justice O'Connor Staying the District Court's Protective Order Pending Appeal to the Ninth Circuit] 11/26/1993 (510 U.S. 1301)
IM-WA-0009-0004 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Supreme Court website
[Supreme Court] Order [Granting Certiorari, Vacating and Remanding] 12/06/1993 (510 U.S. 1007)
IM-WA-0009-0005 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Supreme Court website
[Ninth Circuit] Order [Remanding to the District Court] 03/31/1995 (50 F.3d 789)
IM-WA-0009-0006 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Order [Dismissing Appeal on the District Court's Protective Order] 03/31/1995 (51 F.3d 280)
IM-WA-0009-0007 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
[Ninth Circuit] Opinion [Affirming the District Court's Order Reinstating Class Certification and Granting Temporary Relief] 09/24/2002 (306 F.3d 842)
IM-WA-0009-0008 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Third Amended Complaint - Class Action 02/06/2004
IM-WA-0009-0009 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation of Settlement 08/24/2007
IM-WA-0009-0002 PDF | Detail
Stipulation and Order as to Address Changes Under Settlement Agreement 09/08/2008 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0009-0010 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order of Protection Regarding Privacy Act Information and Information Covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(c)(5) 09/09/2008 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0009-0011 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Stipulation of Settlement [and Order] re: Attorney's Fees and Costs 09/09/2008 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0009-0012 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order of Final Judgment 09/09/2008 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0009-0013 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Farris, Joseph Jerome (Ninth Circuit)
IM-WA-0009-0003 | IM-WA-0009-0006
Ferguson, Warren John (Ninth Circuit, C.D. Cal.)
IM-WA-0009-0003 | IM-WA-0009-0006 | IM-WA-0009-0007 | IM-WA-0009-0008
Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Ninth Circuit)
IM-WA-0009-0007 | IM-WA-0009-0008
O'Connor, Sandra Day (SCOTUS)
IM-WA-0009-0004
Pregerson, Dean D. (C.D. Cal.)
IM-WA-0009-0003 | IM-WA-0009-0006 | IM-WA-0009-0007 | IM-WA-0009-0008
Robart, James L. (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0009-0002 | IM-WA-0009-0010 | IM-WA-0009-0011 | IM-WA-0009-0012 | IM-WA-0009-0013 | IM-WA-0009-9000
Rothstein, Barbara Jacobs (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0009-0014 | IM-WA-0009-0015
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Gibbs, Robert H. (Washington)
IM-WA-0009-0002 | IM-WA-0009-0009 | IM-WA-0009-0010 | IM-WA-0009-0011 | IM-WA-0009-0012 | IM-WA-0009-9000
Pauw, Robert (Washington)
IM-WA-0009-0009 | IM-WA-0009-9000
Rubin, Michael (California)
IM-WA-0009-0009
Schey, Peter A. (California)
IM-WA-0009-0002 | IM-WA-0009-0009 | IM-WA-0009-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Cohen, Rebecca Shapiro (Washington)
IM-WA-0009-9000
Dauenheimer, David E. (District of Columbia)
IM-WA-0009-9000
Keener, Donald E. (District of Columbia)
IM-WA-0009-9000
Norwood, Anthony W. (District of Columbia)
IM-WA-0009-0002 | IM-WA-0009-0010 | IM-WA-0009-0011 | IM-WA-0009-0012 | IM-WA-0009-9000
Pickrell, Christopher Lee (Washington)
IM-WA-0009-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -