This case, Newman v. INS (originally LULAC v. INS) was a companion case to Catholic Social Services v. Reno (IM-CA-11 of this collection). Both cases were filed by attorneys for the Center For Human Rights & Constitutional Law and challenged the INS' interpretation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), which established a one-time only amnesty program through which aliens could apply for lawful temporary resident status. Catholic Social Services v. Reno was filed in November 1986 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California and challenged the legality of the "advanced parole" provision of the IRCA. Newman v. INS was subsequently filed in 1987 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It challenged the INS' "facially valid visa" rule. Under that rule, aliens who briefly departed and returned to the U.S., but presented "facially valid" entry documents, were denied participation in the amnesty program and had their applications for legalization summarily denied. Another related case, Zambrano v. INS [IM-CA-8], was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in 1988 and challenged certain INS regulations which interpreted the IRCA.
Like the Catholic Social Services case, Newman v. INS was litigated for over 20 years and produced a complicated procedural history of appeals to and remands from the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court. On several occasions, both cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal.
In Newman, the District Court (William D. Keller) initially struck down the "facially valid visa" rule and ordered the INS to allow individual class members additional time to refile legalization papers. The INS appealed and the Newman and CSS cases were consolidated and affirmed on appeal. Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 956 F.2d 914 (1992) . The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case as it determined that some of the class members' claims were not ripe. The Court found that some class members had ripe claims, particularly those individuals whose applications had been summarily rejected by an INS legalization assistant due to perceived violations of the challenged travel regulation. (Rejection of the applications outright was known as "front-desking.") Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., 509 U.S. 43 (1993).
After the case was remanded to the District Court, Congress amended the immigration laws by enacting the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. A provision of that Act sought to limit court review of legalization claims. The INS maintained that the Act deprived the courts of jurisdiction in the Newman and Catholic Social Services cases. The Ninth Circuit held that the District Court had no jurisdiction in the Catholic Social Services case, Catholic Social Services v. Reno, 134 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 1998), but declined to dismiss the Newman case, Newman v. INS, 141 F.3d 1178. (9th Cir. 1998).
On July 2, 1999, the District Court (Judge Keller) issued a permanent injunction in the Newman case which required the INS to accept and process legalization applications from "front-desked" class members. Judge Keller, however, dismissed the claims of the "constructively front-desked" applicants. Both parties appealed. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's injunction, but reversed and remanded the case to the extent that the Court had dismissed the claims of the "constructively front-desked" applicants. Newman v. INS, 33 Fed.Appx. 328(9th Cir. 2001).
Settlement discussions soon followed and an agreement was reached in late 2003 in the both the Newman and Catholic Social Services cases. On February 18, 2004, District Judge Keller approved the Newman settlement, which allowed class members to apply for permanent resident status under the amnesty program beginning about March 2004. For the full settlement terms, see the Court's Order Approving Settlement of Class Action, which is part of the document collection for this case. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs $1,900,000 in full settlement of all claims they had for attorneys' fees and costs.
On April 25, 2007, in accordance with the settlement agreement, Judge dismissed the case and dissolved any injunctive orders and other decisions previously entered.Miles Chan - 08/05/2007