On January 11, 1993, a group of Filipino applicants for naturalization under § 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), Pub. L. No. 101-649 filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to challenge the way in which veterans could prove their ...
read more >
On January 11, 1993, a group of Filipino applicants for naturalization under § 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), Pub. L. No. 101-649 filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to challenge the way in which veterans could prove their qualifying military service in the Filipino army. § 405 of IMMACT provided for naturalization of those who served in one of the Philippine military organizations listed in § 405. The INS contended that proof of such qualifying service must have been made by way of a certificate from the United States Army. Plaintiffs contended that a number of Philippino veterans were improperly omitted from the lists kept by the Army in St. Louis and therefore, they were entitled to prove their military service by other means.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which the District Court (Stephen V. Wilson) denied. Appellants appealed.
The Ninth Circuit Court of appeals reversed. The Court relied on Almero v. I.N.S., 18 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 1994), which was consolidated with this case for the purpose of oral argument. In Almero, the Ninth Circuit held that under § 405 of IMMACT, veterans were not required to prove their military service solely by certificate from the United States Army, but could instead use documents from executive department under which they served, including Philippine government records. The case was remanded with instructions to the district court to grant a preliminary injunction and to take such other actions as consistent with Almero. Serquina v. U.S., 19 F.3d 29, 1994 WL 76306 (9th Cir. 1994).
On remand, the District Court (Judge Wilson) issued a preliminary injunction in September 1994, which it subsequently modified and made permanent. From September 1994 through June 1998, the government filed numerous status reports to update the Court as to its compliance with the injunction.
On July 1, 1998, the District Court granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of a stipulated settlement agreement & dismissal of the case. All previously issued injunctive orders were vacated and the case was closed.Dan Dalton - 10/21/2007