In 1989, a group of refugees from El Salvador who had filed applications for political asylum filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, challenging the way the INS processed their asylum applications and its refusal to issue interim employment authorizations while their applications were pending. Specifically, plaintiffs challenged the INS' implementation of regulations contained in 8 C.F.R. § 274 (1986), which permitted an alien who has filed an asylum application to request temporary employment authorization. These regulations required the INS to adjudicate requests for employment authorization within 60 days, and to grant employment authorization to any alien who has filed a "nonfrivolous" asylum application. Plaintiffs alleged that INS was improperly interpreted the term "nonfrivolous" and as a result was the denial of interim employment authorizations that should have been granted.

Plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction, which the government opposed. As plaintiffs did not move for class certification, the District Court considered the request for injunctive relief only as it applied to the named plaintiffs. On July 21, 1989, the District Court (Judge William W. Justice) determined that there was a likelihood that plaintiffs would succeed in the case as it found that the INS' application of the term "nonfrivolous" was likely unlawful. Judge Justice issued a preliminary injunction on the claims of 12 of the 13 named plaintiffs, ordering the INS to issue them interim employment authorizations. Ramos v. Thornburgh, 732 F.Supp. 696 (E.D.Tex., 1989)

On September 12, 1990, the Court certified the case as a class action. The plaintiff class was divided into two subclasses. The first class was defined as "all asylum applicants who are residing or who resided at the time they submitted their request for employment authorization, within the state of Texas who have requested or will request employment authorization from defendant Attorney General, have not or will not receive a response within sixty days of the request and have not been or will not be granted interim employment authorization." The second subclass was defined as "all asylum applicants who are residing, or who resided at the time they submitted their request for employment authorization, within the state of Texas who have requested or will request employment authorization from defendant Attorney General, and have had or will have such a request denied because of the defendant's determination that the asylum application is frivolous."

The government then moved to dismiss the case, or in the alternative for summary judgment. The Court denied that motion by order dated January 16, 1992.

Litigation proceeded until the Court issued a stay of the case proceedings in 1995. The stay was in effect until March 1007, when the parties filed a joint motion to approve the settlement of the case. In lieu of conducting a fairness hearing to approve the settlement on behalf of all class members, the Court issued an order on August 21, 1997 vacating its order certifying the case as a class action and dismissing all claims pursuant to the private settlement agreement of the named parties. The Court ordered that defendant was to pay attorney's fee to plaintiffs in the sum of $92,500.00.

Dan Dalton - 10/30/2007


compress summary