UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ImmigrationPortaL Com 5225 N. Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22201 An Unincorporated Association Represented By:

Dr. Ram K. Grandhi Director, Pre-doctoral Orthodontics University of Missouri - Kansas City, School ofDentistry Kansas City, MO 64108

Kresna Hartandi 5212 Solomon Ct., Apt. A Gurnee, IL 60031

Rajkumar Kandasamy 36325 Grand River, Apt. 203 Fannington, MI 48335
Kazuomi Kashii 80 2nd Street, Apt. 6 Los Altos, CA 94022

COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
CASE NUl1BER 1: 03CV02606

Vladimir Morozov 235 Columbia, Apt. 3L Cambridge, MA

JUDGE, James Robertson DECK TYPE, General Civil

On behalf ofImmigrationPortal.Com, Individually on their own behalf and on

DATE STAMP:
'''-...----~--. --- ------

behalf of their derivative beneficiaries, and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

12/22/2003
FILED

AND
Mathew Chacko 2400 South Glebe Road, Apt. 707 Arlington, VA 22206

DEC 222003
NANCYMu.AsY. EDRlSl'1ilR"lm\CIlNCGOTUORNT. ClERK

I

Samrajya L. Kompella 2507 William Taft Court Herndon, VA 20171
Savita Krishnamurthy 113 4th Street, SE, Apt. B Washington, DC 20003
Rajah Kalipatnapu 4300 The Woods Drive, #1805 San Jose, CA95316
Individually on their own behalf and on behalf oftheir derivative beneficiaries, and .on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Tom Ridge, Secretary Office of the General Counsel . U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Washington DC 20258
U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Washington DC 20258
Eduardo Aguirre, Ir. Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 425 Eye St. NW Washington DC 20536
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 425 Eye St. NW Washington DC 20536
Donald Neufeld, Director California Service Center U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services 24000 Avila Road, 2nd FIr. Room 2302 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
2

Terry E. Way, Director Nebraska Service Center US. Citizenship & Immigration Services 850 "S" Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68501
Evelyn Upchurch, Director Texas Service Center US. Citizenship & Immigration Services 4141 St. Augustine Rd. Dallas, TX 75227
Paul Novak, Director Vermont Service Center U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services 75 Lower Weldon Street St. Albans, VT 05479-0001
John Ashcroft Attorney General US. Department ofJustice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
United States of America US Attorney 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The Plaintiffs present instant Complaint before this honorable court requesting relief
against the Defendants for their actions and for their failure to act in accordance with law.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is a putative class action for relief pursuant to law including the US
Constitution, Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361), Declaratory Judgment Act (28
U.S.C. § 2201), and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC § 551 et seq.).
3

This action challenges the unreasonable delays in processing of Employment Based Adjustment of Status CAOS) Applications pending before all Service Centers of the United States Citizenship and Immigrations Services (UserS). This action further challenges the USCIS policy of requiring repeated applications for issuance of Employment Authorization and Advance Parole and for repeated Fingerprints during the pendency of the AOS Applications. 2. The process of obtaining employment based US Lawful Permanent Residence ("green card"), especially for Labor Certification based cases has become egregiously dilatory over the past few years. The delays in the process have now come to the point where in States like New York and California it can take six years or more to obtain a green card. In the interim, an employee is left with continuous dread and insecurity. Loss or diminishment of employment almost invariably means abrupt uprooting of years oflife and career built in this country. In most cases, USCIS practice permits not even one day of grace period to arrange for passage out of USA - a state of affairs long way from the constitutional ideal of " ... pursuit of happiness." 3. Additionally, for labor certification based cases, which form a large majority of employment-based applications, any substantial career advancement is unwise. A promotion leads to nullification of the entire green card process., thereby necessitating starting the process all over again - resetting the six-year countdown back to zero. Thus, an employee is required to continue at the same job level year after year.
4

4. The Defendants have administered immigration laws by ad-hoc memoranda and unwritten policy rather than by regulation. Several laws remain inexactly implemented without regulations by the agencies for years. The will of Congress, articulated in various ameliorative statutes, has been thwarted by the lack of regulations and the atmosphere ofuncertainty for employees.
5. A more detailed, but in no way exhaustive, enumeration of the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class is submitted under the caption "INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS."
ll. JURISDICTION 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) because Plaintiffs' claims arise under the . Constitution and the laws of the United States, including, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, variousprovision of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (Immigration & Nationality Act, "INA") and applicable regulations, policies and procedures arising thereunder. This Court may grant relief in this action under 28 U.S.c. § 1361 (Mandamus Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act); 28 U.S.c. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act); and under 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedures Act). 7. There are no administrative remedies available to Plaintiffs or class members to redress the grievances described herein. This action challenges only the Defendants' timeliness in adjudications, procedural policies and related practices, not the granting or denial of individual applications. Therefore, the jurisdictional limitations of8 U.S.C. § 1252 are not applicable.
5

Ill. VENUE 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139 I (e), venue is proper in this judicial district, because the Defendants operate within this district and maintain headquarters in Washington, D.C., and, because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in Washington, D. C.
N. PARTIES Plaintiffs
9. Plaintiff ImmigrationPortal. Com is an unincorporated association of individuals, including over 72,000 registered members and numerous other individuals who congregate online on the Internet primarily to share information regarding and seek redress against violations ofImmigration and Nationality Laws.
10. Individual Plaintiff, Dr. Ram K. Grandhi, is an Assistant Professor and PreDoctoral Orthodontist by profession, whose AOS application is pending as of the date of this Complaint before Nebraska Service Center of the USCIS since April 16, 2001. Dr. Grandhi appears before this honorable court in his own behalf as an individual, on behalf of his derivative beneficiaries and as a registered member of ImmigrationPortal.Com on behalf and in representation of ImmigrationPortaL Com, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.
II. Individual Plaintiff, Kresna Hartandi, is an Associate Chemist by profession, whose AOS application is pending as of the date ofthis Complaint before Nebraska. Service Center of the USCIS since September 15, 2001. The plaintiff appears before this honorable court in his own behalf as an individual, on behalf of his derivative beneficiaries and as a registered member of
6

o
ImmigrationPortal.Com on behalfand in representation of ImmigrationPortal. Com, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.. 12. Individual Plaintiff, Rajkumar Kandasarny, is a Software Engineer by profession, whose AOS application is pending as ofthe date of this Complaint before Vermont Service Center ofthe USCIS since October 7,2002. The plaintiff appears before this honorable court in his own behalf as an individual, on behalf of his derivative beneficiaries and as a registered member of ImmigrationPortal.Com on behalf and in representation of ImmigrationPortal.Com, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.. 13. Individual Plaintiff, Kazuomi Kashii, is a Software Manager by profession, whose AOS application is pending as ofthe date of this Complaint before California Service Center of the USCIS since February 15, 2002. The plaintiff appears before this honorable court in his own behalf as an individual, on behalf of his derivative beneficiaries and as a registered member of ImmigrationPortal.Com on behalf and in representation of ImmigrationPortal. Com, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals. 14. Individual Plaintiff, Vladimir Momzov, is a Bioinformatics Scientist and Project Manager by profession whose AOS application is pending as of the date of this
Complaint before Vermont Service Center ofthe uscrs since October 9,2001.
The plaintiff appears before this honorable court in his own behalf as an individual, on behalf of his derivative beneficiaries and as a registered member of ImmigrationPortal. Com on behalf and in representation of ImmigrationPortal.Com, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.
7

15. Individual Plaintiff, Mathew Chacko, is an Operations Research professional, whose AOS application is pending as of the date ofthis Complaint before Vermont Service Center. The plaintiff appears before this honorable court in his own behalf as an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.
16. Individual Plaintiff, Samrajya L. Kompella, is an Accountant by profession, whose AOS application is pending as of the date ofthis Complaint before Vermont Service Center of the USCIS. The plaintiff appears before this honorable court in her own behalf as an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.
17. Individual Plaintiff, Savita Krishnamurthy, is a Technical Writer by profession, whose AOS application is pending as of the date of this Complaint before Vermont Service Center ofthe USeIS. The plaintiff appears before this honorable court in her own behalf as an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.
18. Individual Plaintiff, Rajah Kalipatnapu, is a Software Engineer, whose AOS application is pending as of the date of this Complaint before California Service Center of the USCIS. The plaintiff appears before this honorable court in his own behalf as an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.
Defendants 19. Tom Ridge is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary Ridge, pursuant
inter alia, to 8 U. S.C. § 1103 is charged with, among other matters, administering
8
_ . _ - - - - - .~-------

•·~I
V
the USCIS and the implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. As such, he has ultimate decision-making authority over the matters alleged in this Complaint. 20. John Ashcroft is the Attorney General of the United States. Pursuant, inter alia, to 8 US. C § 1103, he is charged with controlling determination of all issues of law pertaining to immigration and with representing the United States of America in various legal matters. 21. Eduardo Aguirre, Jf., is the Director of USCIS of the DRS. In his capacity as the Director ofBCIS, Mr. Aguirre is responsible for the administration of immigration benefits and services including the processing of ciitizenship applications and family and employment-based petitions. As such, he has decision-making authority over the matters alleged in this Complaint. 22. Donald Neufeld, is the Director of the California Service Center of USCIS of the
DRS. In his capacity as the Director ofthe California Service Center, uscrs, Mr.
Neufeld is responsible for the administration of immigration benefits and services including the processing of citizenship applications and family and employmentbased petitions. As such, he has decision-making authority over some of the matters alleged in this Complaint. 23. Terry E. Way, is the Director of the Nebraska Service Center of USCIS ofthe DRS. In his capacity as the Director of the Nebraska Service Center, USCIS, Mr. Way is responsible for the administration of immigration benefits and services including the processing of citizenship applications and family and employment-
9

based petitions. As such, he has decision-making authority over some of the matters alleged in this Complaint. 24. Evelyn Upchurch, is the Director of the Texas Service Center ofUSCIS of the DHS. In her capacity as the Director of the Texas Service Center, USCIS, Ms. Upchurch is responsible for the administration of immigration benefits and services including the processing of citizenship applications and family and employment-based petitions. As such, she has decision-making authority over some of the matters alleged in this Complaint. 25. Paul Novak, is the Director of the Vermont Service Center ofUSCIS of the DHS. In his capacity as the Director of the Vermont Service Center, USCIS, Mr. Novak is responsible for the administration of immigration benefits and services including the processing of citizenship applications and family and employmentbased petitions. As such, he has decision-making authority over some of the matters alleged in this Complaint.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 26. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23.2, and 17(b) some ofthe Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf ofImmigrationPortal.Com, themselves, their derivative beneficiary family members and all other similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff ImmigrationPortal.Com is an unincorporated association of individuals, including over 72,000 registered members and numerous other individuals who congregate online on the Internet primarily to share information regarding and seek redress against violations ofImmigration and Nationality Laws.
10

o

27. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), some of the Plaintiffs bring this

action on their own behalf, on behalf of their derivative beneficiary fu.mily

members and all other similarly situated individuals.

28. The Plaintiff class consists of:

All persons and their derivative beneficiary family members whose

Employment Based Adjustment of Status Applications are pending before the

various Service Centers and other offices of the USCIS.

29. The above class, based upon the class members' affiliation. with the community,

ImmigrationPortal.Com, is divisible into two subclasses:

I.

all members of and other participants in the community

ImmigrationPortal. Com and their derivative beneficiary family members

whose Employment Based Adjustment of Status Applications are pending

before the various Service Centers and other offices of the USCIS.

ii. all persons - other than ImmigrationPortal.Com members and

participants - and their derivative beneficiary family members whose

Employment Based Adjustment of Status Applications are pending before

the various. Service Centers and other offices of the USCIS.

30. The membership in the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. The combined number of individuals in the class is expected to be

in thousands (readily ascertainable from the records of the defendants) spread all

over the United States. The resultant difficulties in contacting and

communicating with members of the class make joinder of all class members

impractical.

11

•
31. There are questions of law. and fact that are common to the named Plaintiffs and class members. Common questions oflaw include: 1. whether or not the delay in adjudicating AOS Applications is in violation oflaw; and 2. whether or not USCIS policy of requiring repeated applications for issuance Employment Authorization and for Fingerprints during the pendency of the AOS Applications is in violation oflaw.
32. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs know of no conflict between their interests and those ofthe class they seek to represent. In defending their own rights, the individual Plaintiffs will defend the rights of all proposed class members.
33. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the class. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to each member of the class.
34. Adjudications with respect to individual members of the class would as a practical matter be dispositive ofthe interests ofthe other members not parties to the adjudications.
35. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief witb respect to the class as a whole.
36. Defendant, USCIS, has offices throughout the United States, and as noted above, there are several thousands of members in each class. There is no assurance that, if class members prevailed in individual suits, the Defendants would or could
12

conform their conduct to matters beyond those adjudicated. The prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would also create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants.
VL FACTS 37. The Plaintiffs have validly filed AOS Applications that are currently pending before various Service Centers and offices of the USCIS. 38. The Plaintiffs are eligible to receive an immigrant visa and are admissible to the United States for permanent residence. 39. An immigrant visa was immediately available to the Plaintiffs at the time their AOS applications were filed. 40. The adjudication of these applications are likely to take from approximately two
to three years according to the data supplied publicly by uscrs. This data
changes every month and can be found online at https://egov.immigration.gov/graphics/cris/jsps/index.jsp?textFlag=N# 41. Congress has clearly expressed an opinion that a reasonable time for AOS adjudications is approximately six months. 42. The Defendants have clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonableness in the time for adjudications. 43. During the pendency of the AOS Applications, it is the policy of the Defendants to require repeat Employment Authorization Documents as well as fingerprinting. This policy is arbitrary, capricious and in violation of law.
13

r"'<
! 1
\~
44. Plaintiffs have made numerous inquiries regarding the status of their cases fMim various Service Centers named in this action, but to no avail. The community at ImmigratinPortai.Com has also sent numerous petitions signed by thousands of its members and participants; again to no avail.
vn. RELEVANT LAW AND PROCEDURES
Employment-Based Categories 45. Under INA, the employment-based category is divided into five preferences or
groupings. 8 US.C. § 1153(b). 46. The highest priority goes to first employment-based "priority workers" who
consist of: a) Aliens with extraordinary ability/ b) Outstanding professors and researchers; and c) Certain multinational executives and managers subject to international transfer
to the United States. 47. The second employment-based preferences include professionals holding
advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States.

(A) 1An alien is described in trus paragraph if-

(i)

the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or

athletics wruch has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim

and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive

documentation,

(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of

extraordinary ability, and

(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the

United States.

.

14

f"'.
~;
48. The third employment-based preference include certain professional, skilled and unskilled workers, where qualified workers are not available in the United States.
49. The fourth employment-based preference includes certain special immigrants, including ministers of religion.
50. The fifth employment-based category includes alien investors who create or maintain at least ten jobs in USA, none of which can be for their own family members.
Timeliness Requirements and Consequences 51. Section 202 (8 U.S.C § 1571) of the Title U2 of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of2000 (AC21) clearly lays down the parameters of reasonableness in immigration adjudications, stating: "[iJt It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application." 52. As of December 2003, the Service Centers have delays ranging from almost two years to almost three years in AOS Applications. 53. Section 204 of AC21 (8 U.S.C § 1573) mandates that the "Attorney Genetal shall take such measures as may be necessary to .... reduce the backlog in the processing ofimmigration benefit applications, with the objective of the total elimination of the backlog not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act." That Section also mandates that futures backlogs must be prevented and infrastructure improvements must be made for effective provision of immigration services.
2 Title II of AC2l was independently captioned: Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of200D.
15

54. AC21 was enacted on 17 October 2000, more than three years ago. So far, there have been no improvements in processing times or infrastructure. The Defendants have even failed to promulgate regulations that would at least permit orderly administration oflaws and procedures.
55. Defendants are also required by 5 US.C. § 555 "within a reasonable time ... to conclude a matter presented .... "
56. All applicants for AOS are in the United States on nonimmigrant status such as H, L, 0, etc. 8 U.SC § 1101. After going through appropriate procedures, individuals may apply to "adjust" their status to that of lawful permanent residence (LPR or green card status). 8 US.C. §.1152. LPRs are known colloquially as people who hold "green cards."
57. Lawful permanent resident status confers many advantages over nonimmigrant status. As the name implies, LPRs have the privilege of residing and working permanently in the United States. 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(20). They may travel outside the United States freely and generally are readmitted to the United States automatically. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C). They may petition to immigrate dose family members. 8 U.S.C. § 1151, 8 U S.C. § 1153.
58. LPRs may retain their LPR status (or their "green card") for the rest of their lives or, after five years ofLPR status, they may apply to "naturalize," that is, to become a United States citizen. 8 US.C. § 1427(a). Citizenship conveys many benefits over LPR status. Citizens may vote; they may apply for and receive a United States passport; they cannot be deported from the United States; and they may travel freely into and out ofthe United States. They may petition to
16

immigrate family members, including elderly parents, as "immediate relatives," thus eliminating many long waiting periods. S u.S.C. § 11S1(b)(2)(A)(i). They may hold many jobs that are restricted to United States citizens. They may run for public office. 59. LPR status is a prerequisite for naturalization. Thus, any delay in adjusting to LPR status also delays eventual naturalization. Employment Authorization 60. It is unlawful for an employer to hire an alien who is not authorized to work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. AOS applicants are authorized to work in the United States upon approval oftheir Employment Authorization Document ("EAD"). 61. Neither the statute, nor the regulations provide that EADs expire. 62. Defendants limit the duration of AOS applicants' EAD to one year. 63. Before October 1998,. the renewal filing fee for the 1-765 was $70 per renewal. From October 1998 until February 18, 2002, the fee had been $100 per renewal per year. On February 19, 2002, the renewal fee increased to $120 per year. 64. Because of Defendants' delays in processing EAD applications, most AOS applicants must apply to renew their EADs before they expire and, then, must hope that the Defendants process the renewal application before their current EAD expires. Some Plaintiffs and class members have gone through considerable suffering because of the Defendants' delays in approving the EAD renewals. 65. In some cases where the EAD card is not renewed by the USCIS before the expiry of the previous one, the AOS applicant has to immediately discontinue
17

working thereby causing economic loss to the employer and the AOS applicant himself. 66. As AOS applicants now wait several years to adjust their status, the cost and inconvenience of filing for initial and renewal BADs is considerable. In addition, the durationallimit of the BAD causes needless hardship on AOS applicants. Repeated Fingerprints 67. The Defendants require AOS applicants to be fingerprinted before their adjustment applications are gr~ted. AOS applicant;; who are 14 years old or older must pay a fingerprint processing fee and must appear at an USCIS "Application Support Center" (ASC) to be fingerprinted. The fingerprint processing fee was $25; on February 1, 2002, the USCIS increased the fee to $50. 68. After 15 months, the Defendants consider the fingerprints to have "expired." The Defendants have obligated the Plaintiffs and class members to be fingerprinted again before their adjustment applications have been approved, at additional expense and inconvenience, even though, of course, their fingerprints have not changed. VIII. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS 69. The Defendant;; have administered the immigration laws by ad..hoc memoranda and unwritten policy rather than by regulation. Several laws remain a;; bare statutes without implementing regulations. The lack of regulations and the atmosphere of uncertainty have thwarted the will of Congress articulated in various ameliorative statutes. Because oflack of published regulations, there have been several instances where class members were denied AOS Applications based upon USCIS' misunderstanding of its own interpretation. The

.--.---.------~~

18

reinstatement process in such cases is time consuming, costly and nerve wracking for the class members. 70. Because Plaintiffs and class members have waited ana will continue to wait significantly longer to become LPRs, they have been and are unable to stabilize their lives. Their status here has been and will continue to be uncertain. Some Plaintiffs and class members have been and will continue to be afraid to accumulate assets in the United States because they fear they may ultimately lose permanent residence status and may be required to depart. They have not been able to and cannot plan because they have not known and do not know when they will become permanent residents. 71. Some Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer considerable setbacks in their careers, because of delayed adjudications.. 72. Most Plaintiffs have lost significant work time and will lose significant work
time while pursuing their adjustment applications, making inquiries at users
offices, meeting with lawyers, applying for renewals and travel documents, and otherwise pursuing their delayed permanent residency. 73. As stated earlier, the process of obtaining green card can take as much as over six years. Two years or more years of this can be attributed to AO S. In the meantime, most members of the class are either in a nonimmigrant visa status or in a deemed legal status because of the pendency of the AOS Application. Many class members recognize and dread the fact that loss of employment almost invariably would mean uprooting of years oflife and career built in this country,
19

o
without there being even one day of grace period given to arrange for passage out of USA. 74. For labor certification based cases, which form a large majority of employment based applications, any substantial career advancement is unwise. A promotion leads to nullification ofthe entire green card process, thereby necessitating starting the process allover again. Thus, an employee is required to continue at the same job level year after year. 75. Some colleges and Universities have considered and will continue to consider class members' children to be out-of-state residents and hence charged them outof-state tuition. The class members have had and will continue to have other hardships involving scholarships for higher education. 76. Because they have had to wait and will continue to have to wait many years to adjust their status, and because of Defendants' policies and practices as described herein, Plaintiffs and class members have had to' and will continue to have to submit to repeated fingerprinting at considerable cost and inconvenience. 77. Because Plaintiffs and class members have not and will continue to not become LPRs when or as quickly as they should have, their naturalization has been delayed. Career setbacks are but one of a long list of harms suffered by Plaintiffs. To list just a few, they have been and will continue to be unable to vote and participate fully in our democracy. They have been and will continue to be unable to petition for their family members to immigrate to the United States as immediate relatives.
20
------_.--

78. Because Defendants have implemented unfair and illegal procedures, many Plaintiffs and class members have had to and will continue to have to obtain EADs and pay for repeated renewals of those EADs, resulting in significant outof-pocket expense, including attorneys' fees, inconvenience, and loss ofwages.
79. Some Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer lapses between receiving EADs because of USCIS delays in processing their renewals. These lapses have resulted in and will continue to result in loss of income and risk oflost ofjobs.
80. Because Defendants have implemented unfair and illegal procedures, many Plaintiffs and class members have had to and will continue to have to submit to repeated fingerprinting, resulting in significant out-of-pocket expense, including attorneys' fees, inconvenience, and loss of wages. Some ofthe class members have had to submit to two fingerprints within a span of a month. If a Plaintiff fails to appear for fingerprinting, there is a substantial risk that USCIS would consider their AOS Application to have been abandoned.
81. Delays in processing create greater possibility of error. There have been several instances of errors, followed by confusion and consternation among the AOS Applicants, then followed after some time by corrections and apologies from Defendant USCIS.
82. Plaintiffs' and class members' rights to due process oflaw and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution have been and are being violated and will continue to be violated by Defendants' failures and policies and practices as described herein.
21

(v 1
IX. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF 83. Defendants, despite having a duty to act within a reasonable time, have failed to process and adjudicate Plaintiffs' applications in a timely manner. 84. Defendant USCIS' duty to process Plaintifl's applications and adjudicate each Plaintiff's application "within a reasonable time" is a non-discretionary duty mandated by federal law and judicial precedent. 85. Defendant USCIS' conduct in failing to process Plaintiffs' applications and adjudicate these cases in a reasonably timely manner has caused unnecessary and injurious delays to Plaintiffs, in violation of their rights. 86. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies available and have determined that no adequate remedy exists. 87. Defendants' policies and procedures requiring repeatedEAD applications and fingerprints are illegal and unjust.
Count I. Mandamus Action 28 U.S.C. § 1361
88. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all submissions made hereinabove that are pertinent to this Count.
89. Defendants .are charged with the mandatory responsibility of administering and implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.
90. Defendants bear sole responsibility for timely adjudication of AOS Applications and for orderly attendant procedures.
91. Defendants have failed to discharge their mandated duties.
22

o
92. As a result, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages entitling them to declaratory, injunctive and other relief
93. Plaintiffs have exhausted all possible administrative remedies. 94. There exists no other adequate remedy. 95. Strong humanitarian factors favor the grant ofMandamus relief Countll. Fifth Amendment 96. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all submissions made hereinabove that are
pertinent to this Count. 97. Defendants' policies, practices and customs violate Plaintiffs' and class
members' Fifth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights protected by the US Constitution.. 98. As a result, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages entitling them to declaratory, injunctive and other relief Count Ill. Violation of INA 8 U.SC § 1101 et seq. 99. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all submissions made hereinabove that are pertinent to this Count. 100. Defendants' policies, practices and customs violate INA including § 204 of AC21 (8 US.C § 1573). 101. Defendants have failed to discharge their mandated duties.
23

•

c

102. As a result, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages entitling them to declaratory, injunctive and other relief
Count IV. Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 555 and 5 U.S.c. § 702 et seq.
103. Plaintiff's incorporate by reference all submissions made hereinabove that are pertinent to this Count.
104. By failing to render timely decisions and requiring repeated applications, Defendants' practices and procedures violate the Administrative Procedures Act and constitute agency action that is arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., 702, 706 ("... agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" under §706(1»and 5 U.S.C. § 555.
105. Defendants have failed to discharge their mandated official duties. 106. As a result, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and continue to suffer
irreparable harm and damages entitling them to declaratory, injunctive and other relief
CountY. Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C. § 2201
107. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all submissions made hereinabove that are pertinent to this Count.
108. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' actions and decisions relating to delays in AOS adjudications and attendant procedures are unconstitutional, violate the INA, and are arbitrary and capricious and seek a declaration to that effect under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
24

109. Defendants have failed to discharge their mandated duties. 110. As a result, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered and continue to suffer
irreparable harm and damages entitling them to declaratory, injunctive and other relief Count VI. Equal Access to Justice Act 5 U.S.c. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. §2412 Ill. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all submissions made here~aabove that are pertinent to this Count. 112. If they prevail, Plaintiffs will seek attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.s.C. §2412. X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WFlEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the honorable Court grant the following relief: 1. Assume jurisdiction over this cause; ii. Enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this cause be maintained as a class action; iii. Declare that the Defendants' actions are an illegal, arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; iv. Declare that Defendants' failure to act is an illegal, arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; v. .Enter Judgment ordering the Defendants to process Plaintiffs' pending Employment Based Adjustment of Status Applications;
25

Q
VI. Require the Defendants to ensure that appropriate procedures are implemented to eliminate future Employment Based Adjustment of Status backlogs;
Vll. Require the Defendants to eliminate repeated applications for issuance of Employment Authorization and Advance Parole and for repeated Fingerprints during the pendency ofthe Employment Based Adjustment of Status Applications;
Vlli. Award Plaintiffs attorneys fees, costs and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act; and
IX. Grant such other and further relief as this honorable Court deems just and appropriate.
l'J1.Arr'M' A, ~--­ Attorney for Plaintiffs D.C. BarNo. 419023 Law Offices ofRajiv S. Khanna, P.C. 5225 N. Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22205 Phone: 703-90804800, Extension 110 Facsimile: 703-908-4890 e"mail: rskhanna@immigration.com
26

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ImmigrationPortal.Com, et aI.,

V.
Michael Chertoff, et aI.,

Plaintiffs, Defendants.

Civil Action: 03-2606 (JR)

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
The parties have agreed that this case shall be dismissed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(ii), each party to bear their own fees, costs and expenses.

:Jt~~0 ~.{!;A·«!I un~ttoa rney

Ra' . Kha , D.C. Bar # 419023 Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, P.C.

5225 N. Wilson Boulevard

~ /~ .

Arlington, VA. 22205

=~-;:-;;~=?A-----,:-::;;;-;:;~==-:;-;;;;- (703) 908-4800, Ext. 110

Rudolph ontreras, D.C. Bar#434122 Fax: (703) 908-4890

~(L. L~ik~36452

a-mail: rskhanna@immigration.com Attomey for Plaintiffs

Assistant United States Attomey 555 41h Street, NW.
Room, E4112 Washington, D.C. 20530

Peter D. Keisler
Assistant Attorney General Civil Division

Terri J. Scadron Assistant Director

William C. Erb. Jr. Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box: 878. Ben Franklin Station Washington. D.C. 20044-0878 (202) 616-4869 Attorneys for Defendants

- - ' - _ . - - ' - ' - - " ' - . _ - -. ._ - -

- _ - _ --_..._--,-------

... _ -..

..._ - - - - , . _ - - - - . -

 
 ImmigrationPortal.com v. Chertoff, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 3254490 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 03-2606 (JR). | Nov. 8, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Rajiv Santosh Khanna, Law Office of Rajiv S. Rhanna, PC, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiffs.
Karen L. Melnik, U.S. Attorney’S Office, William C. Erb, U.S. Department of Justice, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge.
*1 Nearly three years ago, on December 22, 2003, nine individuals and plaintiff ImmigrationPortal.com, an “unincorporated association of individuals, including over 72,000 registered members and numerous other individuals who congregate online on the Internet primarily to share information regarding and seek redress against violations of Immigration and Nationality laws” (Complaint ¶ 9), brought suit against the Secretary of Homeland Security, the director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the directors of the five regional service centers of USCIS, as well as the Attorney General of the United States, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and mandamus upon their claim of unreasonable delays in the processing of employment-based adjustment of status (AOS) applications and challenging the USCIS policy of requiring repeated applications for the issuance of employment authorization and advance parole and for repeated fingerprints during the pendency of AOS applications. On March 10, 2004, plaintiffs moved for class certification [# 12]. The government answered [# 15] and opposed the class certification motion [# 16]. On March 31, 2005, I denied the motion for class certification [# 28] “for reasons that will be set forth in a memorandum to follow.”

This memorandum, which follows more than 18 months after the denial of the motion for class certification, is unjustifiably overdue and may indeed come too late to be of any practical use to plaintiffs, since, by the time class certification was denied, the adjustment of immigration status applications of all nine of the named plaintiffs had been approved [see # 27] making the denial of class certification the “death knell” of what remains of plaintiffs’ suit. Indeed, when, nearly a year ago, I called for a status report from plaintiffs, expecting that additional individuals might be named as plaintiffs and specific relief sought as to them, or perhaps that ImmigrationPortal.com might deliver on its undertaking to file an amended complaint [see # 22, at 16], plaintiffs’ only response was to state that they are “currently awaiting a memorandum of reasons from the Court” [# 31]. Thus the denial of class certification does, as the government suggests, throw into question whether anything remains of this case that is justiciable, and a dispositive motion is invited.
As to the reasons for denial of class certification, they can be stated quite succinctly:
1. If there are questions of law or fact common to the class, Rule 23(a)(2), they do not predominate over questions affecting only individual members, Rule 23(b)(3). In their supplemental memorandum [# 22], plaintiffs have collected deposition testimony that in their view supports the general proposition that “essentially all Employment-Based Adjustment of Status (“EBAS”) applications involve the same practice, procedures and questions of law.” Id. at 1. The plaintiffs, however, do not dispute the defendants’ description of a process (or processes) that are complex and involve many steps that need to be completed, one after another. It does not require expertise in queueing theory to conclude, as I do from the record, that the bureaucratic process of pushing paper through any number of check stations will encounter backups and will take a long time. At the same time, the named plaintiffs have demonstrated, to their disadvantage in this case if not to the long-term advantage of the government, that filing a lawsuit to complain about bureaucratic delays is one way to get paper moved more quickly. Indeed, all nine of the people who were named in the original complaint have somehow miraculously found their way through the system. Defendants’ recitation of the status of six named plaintiffs who were awaiting adjudication of their applications for adjustment of status under employment-based categories as of April 22, 2004, when defendants filed their initial opposition to the motion for class certification [# 16-1, at 4-8], demonstrates that all six of them encountered significant delays. It does not demonstrate that they encountered the delays for the same reasons, or that any particular type or form of delay predominated over any other.
1

ImmigrationPortal.com v. Chertoff, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

*2 2. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, Rule 23(b)(2). At the outset of this case, and at oral argument, it seemed that plaintiffs were attempting to identify some specific provision of the regulations, or some specific practice, that was unreasonable, but their only support for the proposition that defendants have acted or refused to act in a way generally applicable to the entire class is to assert, as they do in their reply [# 17, at 3], that “defendants have unreasonably delayed the processing of AOS applications-an act generally applicable to the entire class.”

The standing of ImmigrationPortal.com is questionable. In their papers, plaintiffs refer to ImmigrationPortal.com as an “association,” but it appears simply to be a website, hosted by plaintiffs’ counsel. One can apparently register to be a “member” of an “Immigration Portal Forum,” to post comments or to exchange information, but whether such “membership” satisfies the associational standing requirement laid down by case law remains to be seen. If plaintiff seeks to proceed further with this case, the subject will have to be addressed.
	  

2

 
 District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 1 of 9

U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-02606-JR

CLOSED

IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM et al Assigned to: Judge James Robertson Cause: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM An Unincorporated Association
Plaintiff RAM K. GRANDHI Director, Pre-doctoral Orthodontics
Plaintiff KRESNA HARTANDI
Plaintiff RAJKUMAR KANDASAMY
Plaintiff KAZUOMI KASHII

Date Filed: 12/22/2003 Date Terminated: 01/31/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna LAW OFFICE OF RAJIV S. RHANNA, PC 5225 North Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22205 (703) 908-4800 Fax: (703) 908-4890 Email: rskhanna@immigration.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 2 of 9

Plaintiff VLADIMIR MOROZOV On behalf of ImmigrationPortal.Com, Individually on their own behalf and on behalf of their derivative beneficiaries, and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff MATHEW CHACKO
Plaintiff SAMRAHYA L. KOMPELLA
Plaintiff SAVITA KRISHNAMURTHY
Plaintiff RAJAH KALIPATNAPU Individually on their own behalf and on behalf of their dervative beneficiaries, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
V. Defendant TOM RIDGE Secretary, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rajiv Santosh Khanna (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 Fourth Street, NW Room E4112 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-0338 Email: karen.melnik@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 3 of 9

Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Defendant EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

(202) 616-4869 Fax: (202) 616-9366 Email: william.erb@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dorann E. Banks UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. Attorney's Office, Civil Divison 555 Fourth Street, NW Tenth Floor Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-7561 Fax: (202) 514-8780 Email: dorann.banks@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/01/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marianela Peralta DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 785-9700 Email: peraltam@dicksteinshapiro.com TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 4 of 9

Defendant DONALD NEUFLED Director, California Service Center, U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant TERRY E. WAY Director, Nebraska Service Center, U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant EVELYN UPCHURCH Director, Texas Service Center, U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant PAUL NOVAK Director, Vermont Service Center, U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant JOHN ASHCROFT Attorney General

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 5 of 9

Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen L. Melnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marianela Peralta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C. Erb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/22/2003
12/22/2003 12/22/2003
12/31/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR., JOHN ASHCROFT, DONALD NEUFLED, PAUL NOVAK, TOM RIDGE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EVELYN UPCHURCH, TERRY E. WAY (Filing fee $ 150.) , filed by MATHEW CHACKO, RAM K. GRANDHI, KRESNA HARTANDI, IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM, RAJAH KALIPATNAPU, RAJKUMAR KANDASAMY, KAZUOMI KASHII, SAMRAHYA L. KOMPELLA, SAVITA KRISHNAMURTHY, VLADIMIR MOROZOV.(bcs, ) (Entered: 12/30/2003)

2 LCvR 7.1 - CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ALL PLAINTIFFS (bcs, ) (Entered: 12/30/2003)

SUMMONS Issued (20)as to EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR. ; JOHN ASHCROFT ; DONALD NEUFLED ; PAUL NOVAK ; TOM RIDGE ; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES ; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; EVELYN UPCHURCH ; TERRY E. WAY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General; (Defendants served 2 times) (bcs, ) (Entered: 12/30/2003)

3 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR. served on 12/23/2003, answer due 2/23/2004; TOM RIDGE served on 12/23/2003, answer due 2/23/2004; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES served on 12/23/2003, answer due 2/23/2004; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 12/23/2003, answer due 2/23/2004. (bcs, ) (Entered: 01/09/2004)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 6 of 9

12/31/2003 12/31/2003 01/06/2004 01/30/2004
01/30/2004 01/30/2004 02/13/2004 02/17/2004 03/10/2004
03/10/2004

4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney served on 12/23/2003, answer due 2/23/2004 (bcs, ) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General (bcs, ) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
SUMMONS REISSUED(8) as to EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR. ; DONALD NEUFLED ; PAUL NOVAK ; TOM RIDGE ; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES ; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ; EVELYN UPCHURCH ; TERRY E. WAY (bcs, ) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR. served on 1/2/2004, answer due 3/2/2004; DONALD NEUFLED served on 1/2/2004, answer due 3/2/2004; PAUL NOVAK served on 12/29/2003, answer due 2/27/2004; TOM RIDGE served on 12/30/2003, answer due 3/1/2004; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES served on 12/29/2003, answer due 2/27/2004; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 12/30/2003, answer due 3/1/2004; EVELYN UPCHURCH served on 12/30/2003, answer due 3/1/2004; TERRY E. WAY served on 1/5/2004, answer due 3/5/2004. (bcs, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to JOHN ASHCROFT. (bcs, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA served on 12/30/2003, answer due 3/1/2004., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney served on 1/15/2004, answer due 3/15/2004 (bcs, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
9 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Banks, Dorann) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
10 ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge James Robertson on 02/17/04. (lcjr1, ) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
11 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION to Certify Class by MATHEW CHACKO, RAM K. GRANDHI, KRESNA HARTANDI, IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM, RAJAH KALIPATNAPU, RAJKUMAR KANDASAMY, KAZUOMI KASHII, SAMRAHYA L. KOMPELLA, SAVITA KRISHNAMURTHY, VLADIMIR MOROZOV. (Khanna, Rajiv) Modified on 3/11/2004 (bcs, ). (Entered: 03/10/2004)
12 MOTION to Certify Class by MATHEW CHACKO, RAM K. GRANDHI, KRESNA HARTANDI, IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM, RAJAH KALIPATNAPU, RAJKUMAR KANDASAMY, KAZUOMI KASHII, SAMRAHYA L. KOMPELLA, SAVITA KRISHNAMURTHY, VLADIMIR MOROZOV. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Affidavit Affidavit of Counsel in Support of Class Certification)(Khanna, Rajiv) (Entered:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 7 of 9

03/11/2004 03/12/2004 03/16/2004
03/17/2004 03/30/2004 04/22/2004 04/28/2004
04/29/2004 05/07/2004 05/07/2004 05/13/2004 06/03/2004 09/01/2004 09/13/2004

03/10/2004)
"NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Document No. 11 was entered in error and counsel has already refiled the motion to certify class with attachments." (bcs, ) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by William C. Erb on behalf of all defendants (Erb, William) (Entered: 03/12/2004)
14 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time Within Which to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action by EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR., JOHN ASHCROFT, DONALD NEUFLED, PAUL NOVAK, TOM RIDGE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EVELYN UPCHURCH, TERRY E. WAY. (Erb, William) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
MINUTE ENTRY: Court grants defendants' motion for extension of time 14 to April 22, 2004 . Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 17, 2004. (MT) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
15 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Banks, Dorann) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
16 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 12 for Class Certification filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6)(Banks, Dorann) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
17 REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 PLAINTIFFS? MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLASS ACTION filed by MATHEW CHACKO, RAM K. GRANDHI, KRESNA HARTANDI, IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM, RAJAH KALIPATNAPU, RAJKUMAR KANDASAMY, KAZUOMI KASHII, SAMRAHYA L. KOMPELLA, SAVITA KRISHNAMURTHY, VLADIMIR MOROZOV. (Khanna, Rajiv) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
Initial Scheduling Conference set for 5/14/2004 at 10:00 AM. The Court will also hear the motion on class certification. These hearings will go forward in courtroom 16 before Judge James Robertson. (dam, ) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
18 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Banks, Dorann) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
19 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Khanna, Rajiv) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
Initial Scheduling Conference and Motions Hearing on class certification re-set for 6/3/2004 04:45 PM in Courtroom 16 before Judge James Robertson. (dam, ) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Motion Hearing held in reference to 12 MOTION to Certify Class. The motion is heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Cathy Crump, Miller Reporting.) (dam, ) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
20 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Peralta, Marianela) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
Status Conference set for 9/24/2004 10:30 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge James Robertson. (dam, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 8 of 9

09/24/2004 09/24/2004 10/08/2004
10/08/2004
10/18/2004
10/19/2004
10/19/2004 11/01/2004

Status Conference held. (Court Reporter Bryan Wayne.) (dam, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
21 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for dates 9/24/2003. (lc, ) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
22 SURREPLY to re 12 MOTION to Certify Class (SUPPLEMENARY BRIEF) filed by MATHEW CHACKO, RAM K. GRANDHI, KRESNA HARTANDI, IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM, RAJAH KALIPATNAPU, RAJKUMAR KANDASAMY, KAZUOMI KASHII, SAMRAHYA L. KOMPELLA, SAVITA KRISHNAMURTHY, VLADIMIR MOROZOV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N)(Khanna, Rajiv) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
23 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 12 Supplemental Memorandum In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed by EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR., JOHN ASHCROFT, DONALD NEUFLED, PAUL NOVAK, TOM RIDGE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EVELYN UPCHURCH, TERRY E. WAY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4)(Peralta, Marianela) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
24 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 10/19/04.....REPLY to Pls.'Supp.Mem. for Class Cert. filed by EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR., JOHN ASHCROFT, DONALD NEUFLED, PAUL NOVAK, TOM RIDGE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EVELYN UPCHURCH, TERRY E. WAY. (Erb, William) Modified on 3/11/2005 (adc, ). (Entered: 10/18/2004)
25 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 10/19/05.....SURREPLY to re 12 MOTION to Certify Class In Response to Defendants' Opposition to Supplementary filed by MATHEW CHACKO, RAM K. GRANDHI, KRESNA HARTANDI, IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM, RAJAH KALIPATNAPU, RAJKUMAR KANDASAMY, KAZUOMI KASHII, SAMRAHYA L. KOMPELLA, SAVITA KRISHNAMURTHY, VLADIMIR MOROZOV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reply Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Reply Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Reply Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Reply Exhibit D)(Khanna, Rajiv) Modified on 3/11/2005 (adc, ). (Entered: 10/19/2004)
26 ORDER striking plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum 24 and striking plaintiffs' surreply 25. Signed by Judge James Robertson on October 19, 2004. (MT) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
27 STATUS REPORT Defendants' Notice Regarding Status of Named Plaintiffs' Applications for Adjustment of Status by EDUARDO AGUIRRE JR., JOHN ASHCROFT, DONALD NEUFLED, PAUL NOVAK, TOM RIDGE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EVELYN UPCHURCH, TERRY E. WAY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff Kompella's Approval Notice# 2 Exhibit Plaintiff Chacko's Approval Notice)(Peralta,

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 9 of 9

03/31/2005 10/11/2005 11/23/2005
11/30/2005 11/08/2006 01/29/2007

Marianela) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
28 ORDER denying plaintiffs' motion for certification of class action 12 . Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 31, 2005. (MT) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen L. Melnik on behalf of all defendants (Melnik, Karen) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
30 ORDER that plaintiffs submit a status report within 30 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge James Robertson on November 23, 2005. (MT) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
31 STATUS REPORT by IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM. (Khanna, Rajiv) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
32 MEMORANDUM re: Order of March 31, 2005 28. Signed by Judge James Robertson on November 8, 2006. (MT) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
33 STIPULATION of Dismissal by KAZUOMI KASHII, VLADIMIR MOROZOV, MATHEW CHACKO, SAMRAHYA L. KOMPELLA, SAVITA KRISHNAMURTHY, RAJAH KALIPATNAPU, IMMIGRATIONPORTAL.COM, RAM K. GRANDHI, KRESNA HARTANDI, RAJKUMAR KANDASAMY. (Khanna, Rajiv) (Entered: 01/29/2007)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/22/2007 11:55:50

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: ddalton

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:03-cv-02606-JR

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?753843895111497-L_353_0-1

9/22/2007