In 1979, a group of Philippine permanent visa applicants who were working as registered nurses in the U.S. under temporary visas filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to challenge the way visas were being distributed under Section 202(e) of the 1976 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1152 (e). That section changed the manner in which citizens of a foreign country were admitted to the U.S. as permanent residents. Under the amendment, whenever the maximum number of visas had been made available to natives of any single foreign state (such as the Philippines) in any fiscal year, in the next following fiscal year a number of visas not to exceed 20,000 was to be allocated according to eight preference categories which included familial relation, job status, and refugee designation. Those in higher preference categories in a country with sufficient demand were likely to preclude those in lower categories from obtaining visas. Plaintiffs were third and sixth preference applicants and were denied visas due to high demand from Philippine applicants. They disputed the legality of the section and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On May 29, 1981, the District Court (Judge William Ditter, Jr.) issued its opinion in which it construed what it called "a unique and obscure provision" of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976. The Court engaged in a detailed analysis of statutory construction and the legislative history and found that the statute required that the Court rule in favor of the defendants. Angco v. Haig, 514 F.Supp. 1328 (D.C. Pa. 1981). There was no record that the ruling was appealed and we have no further on information on this case.

Stephen Imm - 08/14/2007


compress summary