District Judge Lasnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

KICHUL LEE et aI, Plaintiffs,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al. Defendants.

Case No. C04-449-RSL

Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby
agree and stipulate as follows:
1. Class Definition
Members of the following class are covered by the terms of this Settlement
Agreement:
All persons who have applied or will apply for naturalization in the jurisdiction of the Seattle District Office, and who have been denied on or after May 4, 1998, on the basis of a lack of good moral character, excepting those who have been subsequently naturalized or those who are statutorily
barred from naturalization.
2. Identification of Class Members
A. Within thirty (30) days of the Court's approval of this Settlement Agreement,

Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCrS")! will use the CLAIMS 4 system to identify naturalization applicants in the Seattle District: (1) who were denied from February 1, 1999, to January 12, 2005; or (2) whose naturalization applications were pending on January 12, 2005, and thereafter were denied, up to the date the Court approves this settlement agreement.
B. Within sixty (60) days after the expiration of the period in Paragraph 2.A., uscrs shall review the applicants' files to determine whether the good moral character denials were based on permanent bars (i.e. 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(1» and/or other statutory bars (i.e. 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (f), INA § 101(f), & 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(2)). Of the applicants identified in Paragraph 2.A., uscrs shall not give individual notice under this paragraph to those who are permanently barred or statutorily barred from naturalization, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 316.1 O(b)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f); and/or 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(2). In addition, all applicants whose applications were subsequently approved and/or naturalized shall not be given individual notice under this paragraph. All remaining Form N-400 (Application for Naturalization) denials for lack of good moral character, which involved the evaluation of evidence relevant to good moral character
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(i) - (iii), shall be
given individual notice. C. Within thirty (30) days after the expiration ofthe period in Paragraph 2.B, ifUSCrS is
not able to locate an applicant's file, then uscrs will provide class counsel with the identifying information of the applicant known to uscrs, as provided for by the Court in its Order of
! For purposes of this Settlement Agreement, uscrs refers only to the Seattle District uscrs office and the users field offices located within the jurisdiction of the Seattle District Office.
2

Protection Regarding Privacy Act Infonnation. D. Within sixty (60) days after the expiration of the period in Paragraph 2.B., USCIS
shall provide a list of the remaining identified potential class members, with most recent addresses, date of birth, Social Security Numbers, and A-numbers, to class counsel. USCIS shall release the applicants' infonnation only as provided for by the Court in its Order of Protection Regarding Privacy Act Infonnation. 3. General Notice to Potential Class Members
Within thirty (30) days of the Court's approval of this Settlement Agreement, USCIS shall provide general notice to potential class members as follows: Notice to Class Members (Notice A, attached hereto) shall be (1) posted on USCIS' official website for the duration of the reopening period; (2) posted in publicly accessible locations at USCIS' field offices in the jurisdiction of the Seattle District Office for the duration of the reopening period; (3) sent to the Washington State Bar Association and the Northwest Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association for distribution to their members bye-mail or their other publications; (4) sent bye-mail or regular mail to USCIS' lists of Washington State community agencies and media; and (5) distributed to all naturalization examiners and supervisors and infonnation officers in the Seattle District. 4. Reopening and Readjudication of Naturalization Proceedings for Class Members
A. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the expiration of the period in Paragraph 2.B., USCIS will reopen naturalization proceedings for applicants who are class members. USCIS shall notify the potential class members that their naturalization applications have been reopened and that they can submit a new Form N-400. Notice shall be given by
3

mailing Notice B, attached hereto, to the potential class member by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the notice is returned as undeliverable, then USCIS shall promptly notify class counsel and provide the applicant's name, last know address, Social Security Number, and date of birth, so that class counsel can make good faith efforts to locate the class member. USeIS
shall release the applicants' infonnation to class counsel only as provided for by the Court in its
Order of Protection Regarding Privacy Act Information. B. Potential class members may submit a request to have their naturalization application
reopened and readjudi(.;ated. Tht: rt:4ut:st [or rt:opt:ning is made by filing a new Form N-400 at the Seattle District Office, without fee for filing or fingerprints, at any time after court approval of the Settlement agreement, but not more than twelve (12) months after the date on which USCIS mails the individual notices to identified class members, as described in Paragraph 4.A., or twelve (12) months after the date on which USCIS posts the General Notice, as described in Paragraph 3, whichever date is later.
C. Upon receipt of a new Form N-400, ifUSCIS gave the applicant individual notice pwsuallt to Paragraph 2, then USCIS will adjudicate the application in 110nnal Seattle District Office processing time and in accordance with the procedures described in this Settlement Agreement. For persons who submitted a new Form N-400 and who were not given individual notice pursuant to Paragraph 2, USCIS will determine whether the applicant is a class member, and if so then the new Form N-400 application that has been submitted will be deemed to be a pending application for naturalization and will be adjudicated in normal Seattle District Office processing times and in accordance with the procedures described in this Settlement Agreement.
D. IfUSCIS determines that the applicant is not a class member, then it shall provide
4

written notice to the applicant, with a copy to class counsel, stating the reasons why the applicant has been detennined not to be a class member, and notifying the individual of the name and address of class counsel.
5. Notice to Applicants with Pending Naturalization Cases
Thi~ paragraph applie~ to all incliviclllal~ who have ~llhmittecl a natnralization application that will be adjudicated by USCIS in the Seattle District, whether the application has been filed with fee pursuant to standard filing procedures or filed without fee pursuant to Paragraph 4. In adjudicating any pending application for naturalization, ifUSCIS issues to the applicant either an N-14B (Request for Additional Evidence) requesting evidence that is relevant to the issue of good moral character or a Notice of Continuance notifying the applicant that a decision on the application will be continued, then USCIS shall advise the applicant as follows: "You may provide evidence of good moral character. If you have questions regarding what is good moral character, then you may refer to the "Guide to Naturalization" at www.uscis.gov or seek the advice of an immigration attorney or an immigration assistance organization. See INA lOl(f); 8 C.F.R. § 3UdO."
6. Adjudication of "Good Moral Character" Issues
A. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 316.10, the decision concerning whether an applicant for naturalization has established good moral character for the relevant period will be made on a case-by-case basis. In deciding whether the applicant has good moral character, USCIS will consider both evidence of negative and positive factors, to the extent that such evidence relates to the applicant's moral character. Evidence of negative factors may include, but is not limited to: prior criminal record; the number of convictions; the seriousness of the criminal conduct; and
5

whether the applicant has committed other violations of the law which are morally turpitudinous. Evidence demonstrating positive moral character may include, but is not limited to: evidence of rehabilitation; evidence of family ties and relationships in the United States, including evidence of efforts to support a spouse and children, evidence of volunteer work or other work in the community; evidence of stable and responsible employment; character reference letters; employer letters; educational certificates; evidence of community or religious activities; payment of taxes; military service.
D. In making the decision concerning good moral character, users shall not require
perfect moral character. Instead, USCIS will make a determination, based on a consideration of all the evidence in the record, whether or not the applicant has good moral character. IfUSCIS determines that the applicant does not have good moral character, then USCIS will issue a written decision that comports with 8 C.F.R. § 336.1 (b), and lists the pertinent facts upon which the determination was based, the specific legal sections applicable to a finding of ineligibility, and any other conclusions of law reached by the examining officer in rendering the decision. 7. Review of Naturalization Adjudications
USCIS will provide for review by a supervisory officer or a journeyman level district adjudications officer before any final denial of a class member's naturalization application. 8. Reporting on Implementation of This Agreement
USCIS shall provide to class counsel the following reports describing its compliance with this Settlement Agreement. First, pursuant to Paragraph 2.D., USCIS shall provide class counsel with the name, current address, date of birth, SSN and A-number, of all applicants identified for individual notice pursuant to Paragraph 2 and individuals who have submitted an N-400 seeking
6

reconsideration pursuant to Paragraph 4. Second, USCIS shall on a quarterly basis thereafter,

provide class counsel with updated status reports in the form attached hereto as Attachment C.

USCIS shall release the applicants' information to class counsel only as provided for by the

Court in its Order of Protection Regarding Privacy Act Information.

9.

Costs and Attorneys Fees

Defendants will pay plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs, as allowed by the

Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and as determined by a separate

agreeIllt:nt, which will be incorporated by agrt:t:IIlt:Ilt intu this Sdllement Agreement.

10. Duration of Agreement

The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement will become effective on

the date it is approved by the Court. The provisions of this agreement shall remain in effect until

the last application filed by a class member is fully adjudicated by USCIS.

11. Dismissal of Complaint

Upon District Court approval of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs agree to promptly

move the COUlt for dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

12. Continuing Jurisdiction

The Parties agree that notwithstanding the filing and granting of any motion to dismiss

pursuant to Paragraph 12, the District Court will retain jurisdiction in this action over the matters

described immediately below.

A. Claims by plaintiffs that Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of

refusing to implement any of the relief set forth in this Agreement.

B. Claims by plaintiffs that Defendants have expressly repudiated this Agreement.

7

C. At least sixty (60) days prior to bringing any action regarding this Settlement Agreement, the parties shall meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve any of their differences. 13. Class Counsel
Class Counsel for the purposes of this Settlement Agreement are Rohert H. Gihhf<, Rohert Pauw, and Christopher Strawn, Gibbs Houston and Pauw, 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 682-1080. 14. Approval of Agreement
This agreement is subject to approval by the United States District Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The parties have tentatively reached this settlement agreement pending resolution of: EAJA fees, naturalization orders for two previously administratively naturalized Plaintiffs, the privacy notice, the general notice (Notice A), and the reporting notice (Attachment C).

~y o~ Dated thi.!!J

2005.

JOHN McKAY United States Attorney
/~TIN B. JOHNSON Assistant United States Attorney 700 Stewart Street. Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 Counsel for Defendants
8

Dated this 111-£::of!!;}.OOS.
PETER D. KEISLER. Assistant Attorney General Civil Division THOMAS W. HUSSEY Director
PA RI lAM. CORRALES-TALLEDA Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation
u.s. Dt::partmt::nt uf Justi(.;t:: - Civil DivisiuIl
300 N. Los Angeles Street #8108 Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) g94-g627
O~200S. Dated this!ll day
R"TH.GlBBS
RobertPauw
Christopher Strawn 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1600 St::attlt:, WA 98104 (206) 224-8790 Counsel for Plaintiffs
9

 
 1

The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10

)

11 KICHUL LEE, et al.,

)

)

12

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

13

)

)

14

)

)

15 JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, et al., )

)

16

Defendants

)

)

17

)

_____________________________________)

18

NO. C04-00449RSL
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF PROTECTION REGARDING PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION

19

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Robert Gibbs, and Defendants, by and through their

20 attorneys, John McKay, United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington and Kristin B.

21 Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney for said District, stipulate and agree to the following:

22

1. This Stipulation and Order is agreed to and entered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), which

23 provides for the issuance of protective orders limiting the disclosure of privileged and confidential

24 documents and information in appropriate circumstances, and 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11) and (g)(1), which

25 provide an exception to the Privacy Act of 1974 for documents and information released pursuant to a

26 court order.

27

2. This Stipulation and Order relates to a class action brought pursuant to INA

28

ORDER OF PROTECTION REGARDING PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - 1 (C04-00449RSL)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970

1 § 310(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (jurisdiction to hear de novo denials of applications for naturalization); 28 2 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (the Declaratory Judgment Act); and 5

3 U.S.C. § 701 (the Administrative Procedures Act). The class action challenges way the Seattle District

4 Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), applies the good moral

5 character standard, when adjudicating applications for naturalization.

6

3. The parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated August 10, 2005, which

7 contemplates the disclosure of documents and information that may be protected from release by the

8 Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). Specifically, the Settlement Agreement provides that the 9 USCIS will provide class counsel with identifying information of naturalization applicants that fall 10 within the class, but whose files cannot be located by the USCIS. (Paragraph 2C). The USCIS will 11 provide class counsel with the most recent addresses, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, and A12 numbers of identified class members. (Paragraph 2D). The USCIS will provide class counsel the last

13 known addresses, Social Security Numbers, and dates of birth of applicants whose Individual Notice to 14 Class Members is returned as undeliverable. (Paragraph 4A). The USCIS will provide the names, 15 current addresses, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, and A-numbers of all applicants identified 16 for individual notice under the Settlement Agreement and applicants who have submitted an N-400 17 application for naturalization seeking reconsideration under the Settlement Agreement. (Paragraph 8).

18

4. While disclosure of such information ordinarily is prohibited in civil litigation, the

19 Privacy Act provides, as an exception, that such records may be released “pursuant to the order of a

20 court of competent jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). An order of this Court, therefore, would

21 provide a basis for release of the requested information pursuant to the Privacy Act and Fed.R.Civ.Pro.

22 26(c), as well as insulate Defendants from potential liability for improper disclosure. See 5 U.S.C. §

23 552a(g)(1).

24

5.

The purposes of this Stipulation and Order include protecting the confidentiality of

25 certain information while ensuring that the parties are able to quickly and accurately identify potential 26 class members and provide them the relief they may be entitled to under the Settlement Agreement. 27 Accordingly, the parties, subject to the Court’s approval, stipulate and agree that the procedures set out

28

ORDER OF PROTECTION REGARDING PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - 2 (C04-00449RSL)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970

1 in the ensuing paragraphs shall be followed with respect to information provided by Defendants pursuant 2 to the Settlement Agreement and this Stipulation and Order.

3

6. All information provided pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and this Stipulation and

4 Order shall be used solely in connection with this lawsuit. No information may be released or disclosed

5 to any person other than:

6

a. the potential class member the information relates to or Class Counsel in

this action;

7

b. secretaries, paralegal assistants, and other employees and agents of Class Counsel who

are engaged in assisting Class Counsel in the preparation of this action;

8

c. outside consultants and experts consulted or retained for the purpose of assisting in the

preparation of this action, upon condition that, before making disclosure, Class Counsel

9

must obtain and retain an agreement in writing from the outside expert or consultant

reciting that he or she has read a copy of this Stipulation and Order and agrees to be

10

bound by its provisions; and

d. any other person mutually authorized by all counsel to examine such

11

information and materials.

12

7. Any person having access to the information disclosed by Defendants pursuant to the

13 Settlement Agreement and this Stipulation and Order shall be informed that it is confidential and subject

14 to a non-disclosure Order of the Court. No such person shall release or disclose the information to any

15 person other than those specifically identified in paragraph 6, above, without further order of the Court

16 or stipulation of the parties.

17

8. If Class Counsel intends to file any motion, opposition, reply or any other filing with the

18 Court and attach thereto or set forth therein any document or information that Defendants have provided

19 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement or this Stipulation and Order, Class Counsel shall file the

20 document under seal.

21

9. Within sixty days of the conclusion of this litigation, including any appeals therefrom,

22 any originals or reproductions of any the information provided by Defendants under the Settlement

23 Agreement and this Stipulation and Order shall be destroyed by Class Counsel or returned to the custody

24 of counsel for the Defendants. If the documents are destroyed, Class Counsel shall so notify

25 Defendants’ counsel in writing.

26

10. Any specific part or parts of the restrictions imposed by this Stipulation and Order may

27 be terminated at any time by a letter from counsel for Defendants to Class Counsel or by an order of the

28

ORDER OF PROTECTION REGARDING PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - 3 (C04-00449RSL)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970

1 Court.

2

3

JOHN McKAY

United States Attorney

4

5
/s/ Robert H. Gibbs ___________ 6 ROBERT H. GIBBS
Robert Pauw 7 Christopher Strawn
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1600 8 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 224-8790 9 Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/Kristin B. Johnson KRISTIN B. JOHNSON Assistant United States Attorney 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 Counsel for Defendants

10

11
The parties having stipulated, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
12

13
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.
14
§ 552a, et seq., the USCIS, its officers, agents, employees and representatives (including,
15
but not limited to, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of
16
Washington) are hereby authorized under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11) to release to Class
17
Counsel the information identified in paragraphs 2C, 2D, 4A, and 8 of the Settlement
18
Agreement dated August 10, 2005.
19
2. Class Counsel shall utilize such information only for the purpose of locating
20
potential class members in order to notify them of their rights under the Settlement
21
Agreement, and to monitor compliance with the Settlement Agreement, and shall make no
22
further disclosure of such information beyond what is necessary to accomplish this
23
purpose.
24
3. The USCIS, its officers, agents, employees and representatives are hereby
25
relieved of any obligation under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(c) to make or keep any accounting of any
26
disclosure or, under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(8), to provide notice of any disclosure to any
27
individual, made under the authority of this order.
28

ORDER OF PROTECTION REGARDING PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - 4 (C04-00449RSL)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970

1

4. The purpose of this order is to enable the USCIS its officers, agents,

2 employees and representatives to provide information which they might otherwise be

3 prohibited from disclosing under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and as to which they

4 might otherwise incur criminal and civil liability for having disclosed. However, it is

5 understood and agreed that this order does not constitute an agreement or a ruling that any

6 particular evidence is discoverable, relevant or admissible in this matter, nor may this order

7 be construed to compel any action on the part of the USCIS or any of its officers, agents,

8 employees or representatives.

9

10

DATED this

day of

, 2005.

11

12

13

ROBERT S. LASNIK

14

United States District Judge

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER OF PROTECTION REGARDING PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION - 5 (C04-00449RSL)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 1 of 11

1

District Judge Lasnik

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

8

9 KICHUL LEE; NAGHAM ALMENAR; SAM

TA; ASHWIN PRASAD; MOHAMMED AL

10 AMIRI; ABDUL AL-TAMIMI; and HALIMA

AL-MAMAR,

No. C04-0449L

11

Plaintiffs,

12

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY

v.

CLASS

13

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the

14 United States; TOM RIDGE, Secretary of the

NOTED FOR CONSIDERATION ON:

Department of Homeland Security; and ROBERT

15 J. OKIN, Interim District Director of United

June 4, 2004

States Citizenship and Immigration Services,

16 Department of Homeland Security,

17

Defendants.

18

19

Plaintiffs move this Court to certify a class as follows:

20

All persons who are statutorily eligible to naturalize and who have applied or will

apply for naturalization in the jurisdiction of the Seattle District Office, and who

21

have been or may be denied on or after May 4, 1998 on the basis of a lack of good

moral character, or whose application remains pending for more than 120 days after

22

the initial examination.

23

The definition describes a Washington class of naturalization applicants or future applicants

24 who are subjected to unwarranted delays, improper denials, and insufficient notices and

25 procedures concerning their rights under the naturalization laws. It is these class members who

26 have had or will have the challenged procedures applied to their applications.

27

28

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 1

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 2 of 11

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs challenge the policies and procedures used by the United States Citizenship and

3 Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate applications for naturalization, and for determining

4 whether naturalization applicants have good moral character. Plaintiffs maintain that the agency

5 improperly and unlawfully denies applicants for lack of good moral character, fails to inform

6 applicants of the legally correct “good moral character” standard, fails to apply the legally correct

7 standard, fails to inform applicants of the need to submit character reference documentation, and

8 fails to consider such documentation when submitted. The agency without good cause fails to

9 timely adjudicate applications, often taking in excess of the 120 days prescribed by the law, and

10 fails to notify applicants at interview of their right to take their application to federal court for

11 adjudication after 120 days. These practices interfere with the applicants’ statutory and

12 constitutional rights to citizenship and to due process in these determinations. These practices

13 also interfere with applicants’ right to administrative and judicial review, by the lack of fair notice,

14 and the failure to create an adequate record for administrative review

15

The courts have repeatedly certified classes consisting of those persons subject to

16 immigration service practices or policies challenged as unlawful,1 including practices and policies

17 under the citizenship laws,2 and the IRCA legalization programs.3

18
19 1 See, e.g., National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. INS, Civ. No. 83-7927-KN (C.D. Cal.) (order issued July 9, 1985, certifying a nationwide class of all persons subject to an INS regulation under
20 challenge); Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d 1062, 1072 (7th Cir. 1976), modified, 548 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1977); Flores v. Meese, No. 85-4544RJK (C.D. Cal., August 11, 1988) (class of children in
21 INS Western Region); Haitian Refugee Center v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023, 1026 n.1, 1033 (class of Haitian political asylum applicants denied by the INS District in Miami, Florida); Orantes Hernandez v. Smith, 541
22 F. Supp. 351, 371 (C.D. Cal., 1982).

23 2 Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000)

24 3 LULAC v. INS, No. 87-4757-WDK (C.D. Cal., July 15, 1988) (class of persons eligible for legalization who, in reliance on INS, failed to file application by deadline), aff'd sub nom. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v.
25 Thornburgh, 956 F.2d 914 (9th Cir.1992), vacated sub nom. on other grounds, Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993); Zambrano et al. v. INS, No. S-88-455-EJG (E.D. Cal., August 9, 1988)
26 (class of aliens who were discouraged from filing or denied legalization because of INS regulations on “public charge”), aff’d 972 F.2d 1122 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated on other grounds, 509 U.S. 918 (1993); Haitian
27 Refugee Center v. Nelson, 694 F.Supp. 864 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (class of farmworker legalization applicants denied due process as a result of several INS procedures), aff’d 872 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir. 1989), aff’d sub
28 nom. McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991).

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 2

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 3 of 11

1

II. THIS ACTION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(a)

OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

2

In order to be certified for class treatment, an action must be shown to satisfy the four

3

requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Morgan v. Laborers

4

Pension Trust Fund, etc., 81 F.R.D. 669, 675 (N.D. Cal. 1979). The instant case meets these

5

criteria.

6

A. Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder

7

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder is impractical.” The

8

proposed class in this action consists of all persons to whom the agency has applied or will apply

9

its challenged practices. Defendants’ policies affect thousands of individuals. Compl. ¶ 14.

10

1. Numerosity

11

Courts generally find the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) satisfied even when

12

relatively few class members are involved. See, e.g., Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d

13

1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982); Carey v. Greyhound Bus Co., 500 F.2d 1372, 1381 (5th Cir. 1974)

14

(number of class members assumed to be 28); Arkansas Education Ass'n v. Board of Education,

15

446 F.2d 763, 765-66 (8th Cir. 1971) (class membership of 20 persons). See generally 3B

16

Moore's Federal Practice 23.05[1] at 23-154 to 23-155 (1978).

17

It is not necessary to establish the exact size of the class in order to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1),

18

especially when plaintiffs are unable to identify the names of class members with reasonable

19

diligence. In re Financial Securities Litigation, 69 F.R.D. 24, 34 (S.D. Cal. 1975); 7 Wright &

20

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil section 1762. Here defendants are

21

knowledgeable as to the actual numbers of class members of naturalization applicants who have

22

been denied for good moral character reasons, as well as the number of applications that are

23

pending for over 120 days after interview. The District reported in October and December that

24

there were over 300 applicants delayed awaiting name checks. Additionally, over the past six years

25

there have been many naturalization applications that have been denied for lack of good moral

26

character. On information and belief, counsel believes it to be well in excess of several thousand

27

class members. “Where the exact size of the class is unknown but general knowledge and common

28

sense indicate that it is large, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.”

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 3

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 4 of 11

1 Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351, 371 (C.D. Cal. 1982).

2

2. Impracticability of Joinder

3

A number of factors, other than class size, may be considered in determining whether joinder

4 would be impracticable, including the geographical diversity of class members, the ability of

5 plaintiffs to identify individual class members, the ability of individual claimants to institute

6 separate suits, and the type of review sought.4 Each of these factors shows the impracticability of

7 joinder in the present case.

8

a. The plaintiff class is geographically dispersed.

9

The geographical location of class members in this case makes joinder impracticable.5 The

10 class definition includes all naturalization applicants under the jurisdiction of the Seattle District,

11 which includes all of Washington State. Thus, some class members reside in Eastern Washington.

12 Joinder of all class members would be impractical.

13

b. Members of the proposed class are not specifically identifiable

14

The fact that members of the proposed class are not specifically identifiable further supports

15 certification of this class, since “joinder of unknown individuals is certainly impracticable.”6 In

16 this case, the identities of the proposed class members are currently unknown to Plaintiffs

17 counsel by reason of the privacy protections of federal law. Plaintiffs do not have access to a

18 published list of potential class members, e.g. a customer or shareholders list.

19

c. Members of the proposed class are unable to initiate individual action

20

The ability of individual class members to institute separate suits is also an important factor

21

22

23 4 A trial court "should not be so rigid as to depend upon mere numbers as a guideline on the practicability of
24 joinder; a determination of practicability should depend upon all the circumstances surrounding a case." Demarco v. Edens, 390 F.2d 836, 845 (2d Cir. 1968). Thus, other factors may make joinder impractical for
25 the purpose of satisfying Rule 23(a)(1), even when the proposed class is relatively small in size. See, Jordan 669 F.2d at 1319-20.
26 5 See Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir. 1981); see also
27 Newberg on Class Actions 2d at § 3.06; Council of the Blind v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1543-4, n.48 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Robinson, C.J., dissenting on other grounds).
28
6 Jack v. American Linen Supply Co., 498 F.2d 122, 124 (5th Cir. 1974).

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 4

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 5 of 11

1 in determining impracticability of joinder.7 The proposed class members of this lawsuit, by reason

2 of financial ability, poverty, fear of challenging the government, or lack of understanding that a

3 cause of action exists, are unable to pursue their claims individually. Many of the class members

4 were not educated in the United States and have no experience in using the courts to vindicate

5 rights. Most do not have the financial ability to afford assistance from an attorney. These reasons

6 all show the importance of maintaining the present suit as a class action in order to ensure that 7 such individuals obtain a fair adjudication of their rights.8

8

d. When the relief sought is injunctive and declaratory in nature, plaintiffs

are held to a less strict standard

9

When plaintiffs seek injunctive or declaratory relief, rather than damages, the requirements

10
of Rule 23 are less strictly applied.9 In particular, the numerosity requirement of Rule 23, is

11
liberally construed such that smaller classes are less objectionable.10 Furthermore, the burden on

12
plaintiffs to identify the class members represented is substantially reduced.11 Plaintiffs here

13

challenge INS regulations, policies and practices, and plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive

14

relief on behalf of members of the proposed class. Because plaintiffs have effectively satisfied

15

the (stricter) numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1), a fortiori, they meet the requirements of

16

the rule when liberally construed.

17

18

19

20 7 Paxton v. Union Nat'l Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 559 (8th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1083 (1983);
see also Council of the Blind v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1543-4, n. 48 (D.C.Cir. 1983) (Robinson, C. J. 21 dissenting on other grounds) (practicability of joinder includes consideration of ability of individual claimants to
institute separate suits). 22
8 See Morgan v. Sielaff, 546 F.2d 218, 222 (7th Cir. 1976) ("Only a representative proceeding avoids a 23 multiplicity of lawsuits and guarantees a hearing for individuals, such as many of the class members here, who
by reason of ignorance, poverty, illness or lack of counsel may not have been in a position to seek one on their 24 own behalf.").

25 9 Horn v. Ass’n of Wholesale Groceries, 555 F.2d 270, 275 (10th Cir. 1977).

26 10 Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1100 (5th Cir. 1975).

27 11 See Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., 529 F.2d at 645 ("where the only relief sought for the class is injunctive and declaratory in nature . . . even 'speculative and conclusory representations' as to the size of the
28 class suffice as to the requirement of many" (quoting Doe v. Flowers, 364 F.Supp. 953, 954 (N.D.W.Va. 1973), aff'd. mem., 416 U.S. 922 (1974)).

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 5

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 6 of 11

1

B. Common Questions of Law or Fact

2

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class.”

3 Rodriquez v. Swank, 318 F. Supp. 289, 293-4 (N.D. Ill. 1970), aff'd 403 U.S. 901 (1971)

4 (common legal question satisfies Rule 23[a][2]); see also Ali v. Ashcroft, 213 F.R.D. 390, 409

5 (W.D. Wash. 2003), aff’d 346 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2003). In the instant case both questions of law

6 and fact are common to the claims of the proposed class members and the named plaintiffs.

7 Factual differences between cases are insufficient to prevent proof of this element. Gorbach v. 8 Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1998); Ali, 213 F.R.D. at 409.

9

Issues of fact common to the class include whether defendants have failed to inform class

10 members of their right to file a federal court action to obtain their citizenship, failed to promptly

11 adjudicate applications after an interview which demonstrates that the applicant meets all

12 eligibility requirements, failed to request positive character evidence in conjunction with negative

13 character evidence, failed to consider positive evidence, failed to notify the applicant of all the

14 facts and reasons for denial of their applications, and failed to properly apply the “good moral

15 character” standard by requiring perfect moral character.

16

Common questions of law presented in this proposed class action include whether

17 defendants' challenged policies and regulations violate the Immigration and Nationality Act as

18 amended by IRCA and the equal protection guarantee and due process clause of the Fifth

19 Amendment to the United States Constitution.

20

A lawsuit challenging a pattern and practice of allegedly illegal conduct presents common

21 question of law and fact. See e.g. LaDuke v. Nelson, 762, F.2d 1318, 1332 (9th Cir. 1985);

22 Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d at 1066-67, 1072; Medrano v. Allee, 347 F.Supp.

23 605, 610 (S.D. Tex. 1972), modified, 416 U.S. 802 (1974). Even where there are individual

24 variations in the facts or legal issues as they relate to a particular named plaintiff or proposed class

25 member, the commonality requirement is satisfied so long as the class shares some common

26 question of law or fact. See, e.g., Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacqueline, 391 F.2d 555, 562 (2d Cir.

27 1968).

28

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 6

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 7 of 11

1

C. Typicality of Claims

2

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of the named plaintiffs be “typical of the claims . . . of

3 the class.” Meeting this requirement usually follows from the presence of common questions of

4 law or fact. Thus, courts have construed subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3) to be largely duplicative. 5 See 3B Moore's Federal Practice 23.06-2, at 23-325.12

6

In Gonzalez v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67, 71 n. 7 (5th Cir. 1973), the court found the named

7 plaintiff to have claims typical of the class within the meaning of Rule 23(a)(3) because he did not

8 have interests which conflicted with those of the class, and because his claims for relief were

9 based on the same legal or remedial theory. Plaintiffs here have absolutely no interests that

10 conflict with those of the proposed class. The named plaintiffs and class members have the same

11 legal theories and the named plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief for themselves and

12 for the class as a whole. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate the rights of unnamed class members, rights

13 that have been or will be violated through the application of policies and practices by defendants.

14

In analyzing the typicality requirement, “it must be kept in mind what the basic thrust of the

15 action concerns.” Davy v. Sullivan, 354 F.Supp. 1320, 1325 (M.D. Ala. 1973). The “basic thrust”

16 of the action herein is a challenge to the procedures used by defendants in adjudicating

17 naturalization applications. Professor Moore has noted, “[T]he allegation that defendant engaged

18 in a scheme common to all members of the class has been held to support the finding that the

19 claims of the representative parties are typical.” 3B Moore's Federal Practice, 23.06-2, at 23-189

20 to 23-190.

21

22

23

24 12 See also Ali, 213 F.R.D. at 409 (“typicality is not defeated if there are legal questions common to all
25 class members.”); Orantes-Hernandez v. INS, 541 F.Supp. at 371; American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union, 44 F.R.D. 47, 48 (N.D. Okla. 1968) (holding (a)(3) met by representatives “sharing
26 common with the class any claim or defense it has”); Mersay v. First Republic Corp., 43 F.R.D. 465, 46869 (S.D. N.Y. 1968) (allegation that defendants engage in scheme common to all members of class held to
27 support finding that claims of representative party typical). As set forth above, common questions of law and fact exist in the case at bar.
28

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 7

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 8 of 11

1

D. Adequacy of Representation

2

The final requirement, Rule 23(a)(4), is that the named plaintiff “will fairly and adequately

3 protect the interest of the class.” The two principal elements of this requirement are: (1) that the

4 class representative's interests be co-extensive and not antagonistic to the class members'

5 interests; and (2) that counsel for the named representatives be qualified. Johnson v. Georgia

6 Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122, 1124-25 (5th Cir. 1969).

7

Both of these elements are met in this case. The interest of the class representatives here are

8 not antagonistic to those of the proposed class members. Their mutual goal is to declare

9 defendants' challenged practices unlawful and to enjoin further violations. Cf. Hanberry v. Lee,

10 311 U.S. 32 (1940); Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring, Inc., 528 F.2d 551 (5th Cir. 1976). Plaintiffs'

11 attorneys have litigated numerous class actions in the federal courts involving the rights of aliens,

12 e.g. Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, (9th Cir. 2002); Proyecto San Pablo v.

13 INS, 189 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 1999); Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000); Walters v.

14 Reno 145 F.3d 032 (9th Cir. 1998); Gete v. INS, 121 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 1997); Catholic Social

15 Services v. Reno.206 F.R.D. 654 (E.D.Cal. 2002.)

16

III. THIS ACTION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(b)(2)

17

In addition to satisfying the four requirements of Rule 23(a), a certifiable class action must

18 meet one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). This action meets the requirements of 23(b)(2): “the

19 party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class

20 thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect

21 to the class as a whole.”

22

Analysis of the requirements of subsection (b)(2) reveals “that the party opposing the class

23 does not have to act directly against each member of the class. As long as his actions would affect

24 all persons similarly situated, his acts apply generally to the whole class.” 7A Wright & Miller,

25 Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1775 at 19.

26

In Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1100 (5th Cir. 1975), the court held that this

27 requirement is satisfied if “the conduct or lack of it which is subject to challenge [is] premised on

28

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 8

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 9 of 11

1 a ground that is applicable to the entire class.” The court further noted that the “23(b)(2) class is

2 an effective weapon for an across-the-board attack against systematic abuse.” Id.

3

In this case the defendants have implemented procedures applied in adjudicating

4 naturalization applications. These policies and procedures are generally reflected in defendants’

5 regulations and decisions. The defendants have followed policies of refusing to adjudicate the

6 applications of eligible applicants pending completion of a nonstatutory “name check”, failing to

7 notify applicants of their right to go to federal court in the event of delay more than 120 days,

8 denying applications for lack of perfect moral character, refusing to consider positive evidence of

9 good moral character, and interfering with plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional rights to

10 naturalization under the law. The proposed class in this case has been created by defendants’

11 challenged policies and procedures; hence, the requirements of subsection (b)(2) have been met.

12

IV. CONCLUSION

13

The focus of the factual inquiry into the propriety of class certification is whether there is

14 sufficient evidence to support a “reasonable judgment” that the requirements of Rule 23 have been

15 met. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 900-01 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 429 U.S. 816

16 (1976). It is clear in this case that plaintiffs meet all the requirements of class certification

17 pursuant to Rule 23. See generally 3B Moore's Federal Practice, § 23.50 at 23-434 to 23-435.

18

Accordingly, the class as proposed herein should be certified.

19

20

DATED: May 20, 2004

21

Respectfully submitted,

22

/s/ Robert Gibbs

ROBERT GIBBS, WSBA No. 5932

23

ROBERT PAUW, WSBA No. 13613

CHRISTOPHER STRAWN, WSBA No. 32243

24

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW

1000 Second Ave, Suite 1600

26

Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: 206-682-1080

27

Fax: 206-689-2270

28

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 9

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 10 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 10

PAUL SOREFF, WSBA No. 29213 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) 999 Third Ave., Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98104
GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 9 Filed 05/20/2004 Page 11 of 11

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on May 20, 2004, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

3 the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 4 following CM/ECF participants:

5 Kristen B. Johnson
6 Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Washington
7 601 Union Street, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98101-3903
8 Email: kristin.b.johnson@usdoj.gov

9

/s/ Robert H. Gibbs

10

Robert H. Gibbs, WSBA No. 5932

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW

11

1000 Second Ave. Suite 1600

Seattle, WA 98104

12

Phone: (206) 682-1080

Fax: (206) 689-2270

13

Email: rgibbs@ghp-law.net

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS – 11

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1094
(206) 682-1080

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 1 of 26

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

District Judge Lasnik

2

11111111111111111111111111111111111

3

04-CV-OO~49-CMP

4

, 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

,

, KICHUL LEE; NAGHAM ALMEMAR;

SAM TA; ASHWIN PRASAD;

Case No. C04·0449L

10 MOHAMMED AL AMIRI; ABDUL AL·

II TAMIMI; HALIMA AL·MAMAR; GUN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -

LIM; AHMED BERHANU; HANS

CLASS ACTION

" HANSPAL; ADMIR BURNAZOVIC;
t1 RAAD AL MANSUR; YASSIN AL QUREISHI; AL YIM; KAE PHOU

14 SAEPHARN; and ENDESHAW SABE.

15

16

17

v.

Plaintiffs.

18 JOHN ASHCROFT. Attorney General of the United States; TOM RIDGE. Secretary
I' of the Department of Homeland Security; and ROBERT 1. OK IN. Interim District
21 Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

23

Defendants.

24 II---------------------------~

2S

1. This is a class action lawsuit brought all behalf persons who are statutorily
26

27 eligible to naturalize and become United States citizens, but who have been unlawfully

2R denied naturalization by delay in adjudication andlor mischaractcrization of minor

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. I

GlUBS I]OllSTON PAUW 1000 Secl,ml Av,,_ Suit!;' 1600
Selllth:, WA 98104 (206t682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 2 of 26

convictions as demonstrative of lack of good moral characteL Plaintiffs seek declaratory and

2 injunctive relief, and the individual Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their naturalization

]

applications.
4
,

PARTIES

6

2. Plaintiff Kichul Lee is a citizen of South Korea and a permam:~nt residenl since

1
October 31, 1998. lIe resides in Federal Way. Washington. He is married 1.0, and resides
8

9 with. his United States citizen wife and U.S. citizen child.

10

3. Plaintiff Nagham Almemar is a citizen nfIraq who entered thj~ U.S. as the wife

" of a United States citizen on January 27, 1999. She has resided in the United States since
12

13 that time, and is currendy living in Olympia, WA.

14

4. Plaintiff Sam Ta is a citizen of Vietnam who entered the United States as a

15
refugee when he was nine years old. He has been a permanent resident since June 21. 1980.
16

17 He has resided in the Seattle area since that date.

"

5. Plaintiff Ashwin Prasad is a citizen of Fiji and a permanent resident since April

19
13, 1991. He resides in Seattle, Washington.

20

21

6. Plaintiff Mohammed Al Amiri is a citizen of Iraq and a permanent resident

22 since April 21 ,1995. Ife resides in Kent. Washington.
23
7. Plaintiff Abdul AI-Tamimi is a citizen ofTraq and permanent resident. since
24
1994. He resides in Everett. Washington
25

26

8. Plaintiff H31ima Al-Mamar is a citizen of Iraq and a permanent resident since

21 1995. She resides in Everett. Washington.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 2

GlElBS HOUSTON I'AUW 1000 SecDnd Ave. Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 9!i104 (206) 6R2-IOSO

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 3 of 26

9. Plaintiff Gun Lim is a citizen of the Republic of Korea and a permanent
, resident since 1998. He re,ides in Mill Creek, Washington.
1
10. Plaintiff Ahmed Bcrhanu is a citizen of Eritrea and a pennanent resident s.ince
4

5 1997. He is a resident of Shoreline, Washington

•

11. Plaintiff Hans Hanspal is a citizen of Kenya and a permanent resident since

7
• 1998. He is a resident of Issaquah, Washington.

9

12. Plaintiff Admir Burnazovic is a citizen of Bosnia and a permanent resident

iO since 1998. He is a resident ufSeattle, Washington.
II
13. Plaintiff Raad Al Mllnsur is an Iraqi refugee and a permanent resident since
12
13 1995. He resides in Lynnwood. Washington.

14

14. Plaintiff Yassin Al Qureishi is an Iraqi refugee and a permanent resident since

15
1997. He resides in Lynnwood, Washington.
16

17

15. Plaintiff Al Yim is a citizen of Cambodia and a permanent resident since 1998.

18 He is a resident of Des Moines, Washington.

I'
16. Plaintiff Koy Fou Saepharn is a Laot.ian refugee and a permanent resident since
20
21 1984. She is a resident of Seattle, Washington.

22

17. Plaintiff Endeshaw Sabe is a citizen of Eritrel:l and a permanent resident since

23
1995. He is a resident of Lynnwood, Washington.

24

"

18. Defendant John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, has been

26 conferred the authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States by INA § 310 (a),

27 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a), and is sued here in his official capacity.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3

GIHRS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 Second Ave. Suile 1600
S\latllc. WA 98104
(206) 682-1 OIW

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 4 of 26

19. Defendant Tam Ridge is the Secretary o!'the Department of Homeland 2 Security (" DHS"). As of March 1, 2003, DHS is the agency responsible far implementing

the Immigration and Nationality Act Within DHS. the United SUites Citizenship and
4
, Immigration Services ("CIS"), formerly part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ,
is now responsible for implementing the provisions under which lawful permanent residents
7
can be naturalized and become United States citizens. in particular INA § 310. 8 U.Sc. §
, 8 1421,01. soql Respondent Ridge is sued in his official capacity.

10

20. Defendant Roberlj. akin is the interim District Director ofthe Seattle District

II
(]f Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security, formerly
12

13 the Immigration and Naturalization Service. and is sued here in his official capacity. Mr.

14 Okin has been delegated authority, under 8 C.F.R. § 310.2, to control all activities within the

15
Seattle District, including the authority to grant or deny naturaHzatlon applications.
16

17

JURISDICTION

18

21. This Court has jurisdiction pursuanllo INA § 3iO(c), 8 U.S.c. § 1421 (c)

19
Uurisdiction to hear de novDdenials of applications for naturalization); INA § 336 (b) , 8
20
U.S.C. § 1447(b) Gurisdicti.on for hearing on naturalization in certain cases of delay); 28
21

22 U.s.c. § 1331 (federal questionjurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Declaratory Judgment
23

24
,; 11------------------

26 1 On March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naluralization Service ("INS") ceased to exi~t and its functions were transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. See Homeland

27 SecuriLy Act, 116 Stat. 2135, Pub. L. 107·296 (2002). TILe former INS was divided into three

separate agencies, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Jmmigration and Customs Enforccmcnt,
" and Customs and Border Protection. This complaint challenges decisions of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the component responsible for adjudicating naturalization fictitious.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 4

OLBa" HOUSJON PAUW
1000 Second Ave_ Sl1lte 1600

Seattle, WA9l'i104

(20fi) fi~2-IORO

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 5 of 26

Act; 5 U.S.C. § 701, the Administrative Procedures Act; and 5 U.S.C. § 504, the Equal

1 Access to Justice Act.
l
4

VENUE

5

22. Venue in the Western District of Washington is appropriate pursuant to 8

• U.S.C. § 1421 (c) because Plaintiffs reside within the district and the administrative decision

7
, denying or delaying Plaintifls' applications for naturalization were issued by the Seattle , omce of CIS, located within this district.

10

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

11
23. Plaintiff Kic:hul Lee (A46-697-271) is a citizen of South Korea residing in
12

13 Federal Way. Washington, He has been a lawful permanent resident since October 31,1998.

14 He is married to, and resides with, his United States citizen wife since December 27,1997.
" He has a United Stales citizen daughter, Jessie Lee, who was born in the United States on

lJ October 27. 2000. lie has a college degree and stable employment. He applied for
18 citizenship on April 2, 2002, and disclosed a minor conviction from 1999. He was
19
fingerprinted by CIS, and, prior to setting an interview, the FBI provided a ",omplete criminal
20
background check to the CIS. He was interviewed at Seattle CIS on January 21, 2003, where
21
22 he passed the English, history and government tesL'i and was found to meet the residence

requirements of the naturalization laws. He was not given notice at the interview of his
24
remedies under 8 U.s.C. § 1446 and § 1147 as required by law. He provided all requested

information concerning his single criminal conviction, a 1999 citation for Possession of

27 Oysters in Excess ofthe Personal Use Limit and Possession of Oysters in the Shell, Taken

28
from the Intertidal Zone, a misdemeanor violation under the Washington Administrative

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 5

GIHHS HOUSTON I'AUW
1000 Second Ave. Suile 1600
Seattle, WA ~!!l04 (206) 6~2-1O!!O

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 6 of 26

Code ("WAC") §§ 220.56.312 and 385. He was tlned $152 dollars. which he paid.
, Defendants did not request any additional information concerning good moral character.
J
other than the criminal history information. His application was denied on June 4, 2003, on
4
5 the ground that he lacked good moral character solely because of the 1999 citation. Plaintiff
6 Lee filed a timely administrative appeal of his naturalization denial to CIS, but his appeal
1
, was denied on October 8,2003, again based solely on his 1999 conviction. The denial is in
9 error because Mr. Lee is of good moral character. Furthermore, the CIS officer adjudicating
10 the application for naturalization did not consider the record evidence of Mr. Lee's good
II
moral character, but only the conviction related to harvesting of shellfish. Respondents
12
13 failed to properly follow the law defining good moral character, causing Mr. Lee
14 unnecessary legal expenses and delay in his eUgibility to vote. The denial of his
15
naturalizalion application has not been upheld in any other prior administrative pro(.eedingc
16
11 Plaintiff Kichul Lee is eligible for naturalizalion, meets all of the requirements for
18 naturalization, and would have been approved for naturalizatiDn if CIS had properly
19
followed and implemented the slatute.
20
24. Plaintiff Nagham Almemar (A45-821-704) is a citizen aflraq who entered the
21
22 United States on January 27, 1999 as the spouse ofa U.s. citizen. She applied for
23
naturalization on May 2, 2002. She was fingerprinted and the FBI provided confimlalion of
24
a complete criminal history check to the INS. She was interviewed at then Seattle INS on

26 February 10, 2003. She passed the history, government and English tests, and met the good 27 moral character and residence requirements of the law. She was not given notice at the

int.erview of herremedies under S U.s.C. § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. Her

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 6

GIBBS HOUSTON I'AUW
1000 SecDnd AYe. Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 9&104
(ZOo) tilU-lOfiO

.., ".. ·__. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - _ . _ - - , Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 7 of 26

, application remains pending despite inquiries to the defendants abo lit the status of her application. In December 2003 she obtained a divorce, in part because of domestic violence
3
in 2002. She meets all the requirements for naturalization. She is entitled to a determination
4
j by the court concerning her naturalization under the provisions of INA § 336(b), 8 U.S.C. §
• 1447 (b). Plaintiff Nagham Almemar is eligible for naturalization. meets all of the
7
requirements for naturalization, and would have been approved for naturalization if CIS had
8
9 properly followed and implemented the statute.

10

25. Plaintiff Sam Ta (A-25-040-497) is a citizen of Vietnam who entered the Unlled

" States as a refugee when he was nine years old. He has been a permanent resident since June "
II 21,1980. He has resided in the Seattle area since that date. He graduated from the

14 University of Washington in 1996 with a degree in Business and has been gainfully
]j
employed to the preseill. He OwhS a condominium where he resides, He appHed for
to
11 naturali2ation on February 24. 2003. and was f1ngerprinted. The FBI provided CIS with a
18 complete criminal background check prior to his CIS interview. Mr. Ta was interviewed at
19
Seattie CIS on October 15, 2003. He passed the English. history and government tests and
20
was found to meet all the residence requil'ements for naturalization. He wa:; not given notice
21
22 at the Interview of his remedies under B U.S.c. § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. His
23 application was denied on October 31, 2003. solely because he was found t,) lack good moral
24
character. The only reason stated for the denial was an arrest on September 19, 1999. for a
25
26 violation of the Seattle Municipal Code § 12A.06.040 O'!arassment) related to a non-violent
27 argument with his then-girlfriend. who was standing outside a locked door at the time of the

incident. The criminal case was dismissed with prejudice 011 October 15. 21)01. after

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 7

GII'BS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 Second Ave. Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 682·IOlW

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 8 of 26

completion of probation terms pursuant to a stipulated order of continuance. The denial of
, his naturalization application was in error because Mr. Ta is of good moral character.
1
Defendants failed to consider all the positive evidence of his good moral character and failed
4
, to properly follow the law defining good moral character. Mr. Ta filed a timely

6 administrative appeal of the denial of his naturalization application. with a I1Ung fee of $1 95,
7
, which remains pending afler a hearing on March 2, 2004. Defendants' inaction represents a

9 denial of Mr. Ta's application. Mr. Ta is ineligible to vote because of the improper denial of

10 his application and has had to incur legal expenses unnecessarily because of the improper
II
practices of defendants. The denial of his naturalization application has nIJI been upheld in
12
11 any other prior administrative proceeding. Plaintiff Sam Ta is eligible for naturalization,

14 meets all of the reqUirements for naturalization, and would have been approved for

15
naturalization if CIS had properly followed and implemented the statute.
16

17

25. Plaintiff Ashwin Prasad (A12-687-387) is a citizen of Fiji who entered into the

I' United States when he was a t.eenager. and has been a lawfu1 permanent resident s.ince April
19
13. 1991. He works. in the maintenance department of the Meadowbrook extended care
2U
center in Seattle, Washington. He applied for naturalization on September 17. 2002. He was
21
22 fingerprinted by Defendants. and the FBI provided Defendants with a complete criminal
" background check prior to his interview on May 20, 2003. At the interview he passed the
24
history. government and English tests, and met all the residence requirements. He was not
25
26 given notice at the interview of his remedies under 8 U.S.C. § 1445 and § 1447 as required

27 by law. His application was denied on May 20. 2003. solely on the grounds that he lacked

" good moral character. Specil1eally, the officer determined th.t Mr. Prasad failed to

CLASS ACTION CO:MPLAINT - 8

GIBBS 1I0lJSTON PAlJW 1000 s.,"QT1li A",,_ Suite 1600
SeaLtle, WA 9!H04 (206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 9 of 26

demonstrate good moral character because he had been arrested and charged with driving
2 under the influence on June 16, 2002, and pled guilty to Negligent Driving, First Degree, on
3
August 19.2002. Mr. Prasad has no other arrests. Mr. Prasad timely administratively
4
5 appealed his naturalization denial. His appeal was denied on January 5, 2004, also on good
6 moral character grounds based solely on his negligent driving conviction. The denial was in
, 7 error because Mr. Prasad is of good moral character and meets all the statutory reqUirements
9 for naturalization. Defendants failed to consider the evidence of good mora.! character
10 ptesented by Mr. Prasad. The denial of his naturalization applicatiun has nut been upheld in
II
any other prior administrative proceeding. Plaintiff Ashwin Prasad is eligible for
"
I) naturalization, meets aJl of the requirements for naturalizat.ion. and would have been
14 approved for naturalization if CIS had properly followed and implemented the statute.
15
27. Plaintiff Mohammed AI Amiri (A71-679-5181 is a citizen oflraq who was
16
17 admitted to the United States as a Gulf War refugee on April 21. 1995, and was later
l8 adjusted to permanent resident status effective that same date. He resides in Kent,

Washington. He applied for citizenship on February 19. 2002. He was flngerprinted by
20
21 Defendant,. and the FBI provided INS a complete criminal background check prior to his
22 interview. At his intervIew at Seattle INS on December 9.2002. he presented an application
23
for a disability waiver on form N-648. pursuant to 8 CFR § 312.2(b). in order to waive the

history. civics. and English language naturalization requirements. Mr. Al Ami..i has sickle
25
26 cell anemia, which has caused brain damage, as well as post~trallmatic stress disorder, major 27 depression disorder, and organic brain syndrome. which causes poor short term memory

recall and poor retention of information, The disability wa.iver was approved. He presented

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ~ 9

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW
woo Sec;Dnd AWL Suile 1600 Seattle, WA 9/;104 (206}6K2-10!!O

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 10 of 26

substantial evidence of his good moral character. lIe was told by the examiner at the
2 interview that his October 17, 1999. traffic infraction for Negligent Oriving in Second
3
Degree would not preclude naturalization. but that final approval was deferred solely
4
, because of the need by CIS to complete a "name check." He was informed that he met all
6 the requirements for naturalization. He was not given notice at the interview of his remedies
7
under 8 U.S.C. § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. His application was denied on July
,• 28.2003. and his appeal was denied on January 21.2004, both denials solely based on the

JO Negligent Driving traffic infraction. The denial is in error because Mr. Al Amiri is of good
II
moral character. Furthermore, the denial did not consider the record evidence ofMr. Al
12
13 Amiri's good moral chal'actel', but only the traffic infraction. The denial of his naturalization
14 application has not been upheld in any allIer prior administrative proceeding. Plaintiff l' Mohammed Al Amiri is eligible fnr naturalization, meets all of the requirement') fm
16
17 naturalization, and would have been approved for naturalization if CIS had properly
18 followed and implemented the statute.
19
28. PI.intiff Abdul AI-Tamimi (A7I-679-060) entered the United States as a
20
21 refugee from Iraq in September 1994. and was later adjusted to permanent resident status
22 effective that same date. He is married with seven children ages 10 through 26. His wife
23
and all children have been naturalized. He applied for citizenship in about February 1999.
24
He was fingerprinted, and the CIS was provided a complete criminal background check prior
25
26 to his interview, on March 30, 2000. He passed the English and history test, and was found
27 to meet the residence and good moral character requirements of the Act. H, was told that he

would be notified when his oath ceremony would occur, but one has never been scheduled.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 10

(lH!IlS HOUSTON PAIJW 1000 S'='(,1Q1ld Av(,1, Sui(c 1600
Seilt1lt:, WA 9F;104 (206) 6j!2-IOHO

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 11 of 26

He was nol given nolice allhe interview of his remedies under 8 U.S.c. § 1-146 and § 1447
2 as required by 1aw. He has made numerous inquiries to the CIS, but has only been told that
3
his case remains pending with a supervisor. Plaintiff Abdul Al-Tamimi is eligible for
4
, naturalization, meet,; all of the requirements [or naturalization, and would have been
6 approved for naturalization if CIS had properly followed and implemented rhe sLatuLe.
7
29. Plaintiff Halima AI-Mama! (A71-680-484) entered the United States as a

9 refugee from lraq in September 1995, and later adjusted to pennanent resid~mt status
1:0 effective that same dale. She 1S married with five children and lives in Everett, WA. She
" filed for citi,enship in approximately January 2001. She was initially fingerprinted by the
12
13 CIS in mid-ZOOt as well as on two other occasions, most recently April 2004. Prior to her
14 naturalization interview at CIS, the FBI provided the CIS a complete criminal history
15
background check. At her interview at CIS on December 6, 200 I, she was infonncd that she

17 had passed the English and history tests, but that. her case would remain pend.ing while CIS
j, await.ed a copy of her "A" file. She was not given notice at. the interview of her remedies
r9
under 8 U.S.C. § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. She has made numcrous inquiries
20
about the status of her application, bul continues to be told that it is being reviewed or is
21
22 pending. Plaintiff Halima Al-Mcunar IS eligible for naturalization, meets all of the

requirements for naturahzation, and would have been approved for naturalization if CIS had
24
properly followed and implemented the statute. Plaintiff GUll Lim (A76-850-961) is a
25
26 Korean citizen who adjusted to pcnnanent resident status on April 21, 1998, He resides in
27 Mill Creek, Washington. He is a recent graduate of the University ofWasliington, where he

is employed in the Computer Science Department. He applied for citizenship on April 11,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - II

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW
woo Sec:ond Ave. SUlle 1600 Seattle, WA 98104 (206)682.-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 12 of 26

2003. He was initially fingerprinted by the CIS in the summer of2003. Pri.or to his

2
naturalization interview at CIS, the FBI provided the CIS a complete criminal history
3
4 background check. At his interview at CIS on November 2S t 2003; he was informed that he
5 had passed the English and history tests, but that a decision could not yet be made on his

6 application. His case was continued and he was told to provide evidence concerning a
7
December 2001 charge of negligent driving. He was not infonned by CIS to also submit
8
9 evidence of extenuating circumstances, nor of good moral character. He provided the

10 requested criminal records shortly after interview. He was not given notice at the interview
11
orhi, remedies under 8 U.S.c. § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. On March 10, 2004,
12
13 his citizenship application was denied based on the negligent driving convic::tion, as well as

14 tickets for speeding and following too closely. The denial fails to consider c.vidcnce of good
" moral character. Plaintiff Lim did not appeal the decision as he considered 'it futile and
16
17 expensive. The refusal of CIS to aet on his appeal is a constructive denial of his citizenship.

" Pla1ntiff Gun Lim is eligible for natunliization, meets all of the rcquircmcnt~ for
19
naturalization, and would have been approved for naturalization if CIS had properly
20
21 followed and implemented the statute.

12

30. Plaintiff Ahmed Berhanu (A46.086-472) adjusted to pennanent resident statu,

23
as of March 14, 1997. He resides in Shoreline. Washington. He applied for citizenship on
24
January II, 2002. He was initially fmgerprinted by the CIS in 2002. Prior to hi.
2S

26 naturalization interview at CIS, the FBI prov1dcd the CIS a complete criminal history

27
background check. At his interview at CIS in March 2003, he was infonned that he had

28
passed the English and history tests, but that a decision could not yet bc made on his

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT· 12

Glflns HOUSTON PAUW 1000 S.;conJ Ave. Suite 1600
Seattle.. WA 98104 (206)682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 13 of 26

application. IIis case was continued per a notice directing him to produce court/police
2 records of an arrest in Seattle on August 3],2001 for Patronizing a Prostitute. He was not
3
infonned by CIS to also submit evidence of extenuating circumstances, nor of good moral
4
,5 character. He provided the requested criminal records within a few days of the interview. The records showed that the criminal case was dismissed with prejudice On December 18,
7
2001 after pretrial diversion, and without a plea or fInding of guilt, and is therefore not a
8
9 conviction under immigration law. He was not given notice at the interview ofbis remedies
10 under 8 U.S,C, § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. On July 31, 2003, a denial of hi,
" citizenship applicaHon was issued, but the denial relates not to Plaintiff Berhanu, but to
12
13 Ruben Rodrigue7.. A91-592-266, who was arrested on a different date for Patronizing a
14 Prostitute and granted pretrial diversion. In addition to relating solely to a different person,
" the "denial" fails to consider evidence of good moral character of Bcrhanu. Berhanu
16
17 submitted a timely appeal of the denial of his citizenship. CIS has failed to schedule an
18 appeal hearing within 180 days as required by CIS regulations, 8 C.F.R. §3]6.2(b). The
'9
refusal of CIS to act on his appeal is a constructive denial of his citizenship Plaintiff Ahmed
2.
21 Berhanu is eligible for naturalization, meet.'\ all of the requirements for natmali7'.ation, and
22 would have heen approved for naturalization if CIS had properly followed and implemented
2l
the statute.
24
31. Plaintiff Hans Hanspal (A71-470~366) is a citizen of Kenya and has been a
" pcnnancnt resident status since March 18,1998. He resides in Issaquah, Washington. He
27
applied for citizenship on February 6, 2003. He was initially fingerprinted by the CIS on

March 25, 2003. Prior to his naturalization interview at CIS, the FBI provided the CIS a

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .13

Gums 1I0lJSTONPAlJW 1000 Sel;{)rul A VOL SlIit.. 1600
Seattlt::, WA 981 04 (206)6R2-IORO

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 14 of 26

complete criminal history background check. At hi~ interview at CIS on September 25,
, 2003, he was infonncd that he had passed the English and history tests, but that a decisIOn
3
could not yet be made on his application. He submitted evidence concerning a 2001 arrest
4
, for Driving Under the Influence, for which prosecution was deferred for a period of
6 probation, which he successfully completed, He was not given notice at the interview of
7
, his remedies under 8 U.S.C. ~ 1446 and ~ 1447 as required by law. On October 15, 2003, a
• denial of his citizenship application was issued based on the single DUI conviction. The
iO denial fails to consider evidence of good moral character. Hanspal has retained counsel and
II
on November t 2, 2003, submitted a timely appeal of the denial of his citizenship application.
12
13 On April 8, 2004, an interview was conducted by CIS concerning his appeal, but no decision
14 has issued. The refusal of CIS to act on his appeal is a constructive denial of his citizenship
15
application. Plaintiff Hanspal is eligible for naturalization, meets all of the requirements for
16
17 naturalization, and would have been approved for naturalization if CIS had properly
18 followed and implemented thc statute.
19
32. Plaintiff Admir Burnazovic (A71-734-747) entered the United States as a
20
21 rcfugee from Bosnia on February 24, 199R, and later adjusted to pennanent resident status
" effective that same date. He resides in Seattle, WA. lIe applied for citizenship on April 23,
23
2003. He was initially fingerprinted by the CIS on May 31, 2003. Prior to his oaturalization
24
interview at CIS, the FBI provided the CIS a complete criminal history background check.
25
26 At his interview at CIS on October 14, 2003, he was iJlformed in writing that he had passed
27 the English and history tests, but that a decision could not yet be made on his application.

His case was continu.ed for 30 days per a notice directing him to produce ccmrtlpolicc records

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 14

GlHflSHOUSTON I'AUW WOO Seeolld Ave, Suite 1600
Seatrle, WA ',1M I 04(ZD6) 6l'j.2-HlKO

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 15 of 26

of an arrest in 2002 for Assault, which matter was never filed with the court. Neither notices
, inform him to also submit evidence of extenuating circumstances, nor of good moral
J
character. lIe provided the requested criminal records within a few days of the interview. He
4
, inquired in January and in March of 2004 about the status of his application. On both
6 occasions CIS responded that the case was still pending on name checks. He wa.~ not given
7
notice at the interview of his remedies under 8 U.S.c. § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law.

9 If he had known of his option to go to federal court in August 2003, he would have done so,
10 as he wishes to petition for permanent resident status for his mother, as the parent of a U.s.
" citizen, a category without a backlog. Plaintiff Admir Bumazovic is eligible for
12
Il naturalization, meets all of the requirements for naturalization, and would have been
14 approved for naturalization if CIS had properly followed and implemented .he statute.
I'
33. PlainlilT Raad Nassir AI Mansur (A71-674-188) is an Iraqi relugee from the
16
17 Gulf War who adjusted to permanent resident status on January 27, 1995. He resides in
Lynnwood, Washington. He is married with two children who are U.S. citizens by birth. He
19
applied for citj~,enship in 1999 but failed to pass the English examination. He has been
20
21 fingerprinted prior to his CIS interviews. Prior to his naturati7.ation intelViews at CISj the
'2 FBI provided the CIS a complete criminal history background check. He reapplied
2J
subsequently to the denied application and was most recently interviewed on February 3,
24
2004. lIe applied for a disability waiver, which was granted. At that interview at CIS, he

26 W3..1l. informed that he had passed any required testsj hut that a decision could not yet be made

21 on his application. lIe was not givcn notice at thc interview of his remedies under 8 U.S.c. §

" 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. Plaintiff Al Mansur is eligible for naturalization, meets

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 15

GHmS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 Se.:;und A ve_ SLJit" 1600
Seattle, WA 9i::II04 (2OU)6H2-10HO

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 16 of 26

all of the requirements for naturalization, and would have been approved for naturahzation if
2
CIS had properly followed and implemented the statute.
J
34. PlaintiffYassin Al Qureishi (A75-048-S92) is an Iraqi refugee from the Gulf
4
,, War who adjusted to permanent resident status on September 12, 1997. He resides in Lynnwood, Washington. He applied for citi,enship in late 2002. Prior to his natumhzation
7
, interview at CIS, the FBI provided the CIS a complete criminal history background check
9 based on his fingerprints. He was interviewed on April 29, 2003< At that interview at CIS.
10 he was informed that he had passed any required tests, but that a decision could not yet be
" made on his application. He was not given notice at the interview of his remedies under 8
12
13 U.S.C. § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. On several occasions since his interview, he
14 has asked CIS for the stahlS on his application, but was merely told the application was
15
pending and that he should wail patiently. Plaintiff Al Qureishi is eligible fi)r natmalization,

17 meets all of the requirements for naturalization, and would have been approved for

18 naturalization if CIS had properly followed and implemented the ,tatute.
19
35. Plaintiff AI Yim (A46-2S7-066) entered the United States as a refugee from
20
21 Cambodia on April 11; 1998. and later adjusted to permanent resident statU~i effective that

22 same date. He 18 married and resides in Des Moines, WA. He applied for citizenship in the

23
spring of 2002. He was initially fingerprinted by the CIS several month. prior to his
24
interview. Prior to his naturalization interview at CIS, the FBI provided the CIS a complete
25

criminal histoI}' background check. At hi. interview at CIS on FebruaI}' 10, 2004, he wa.<

27
informed that he had passed the English an,l rustoI}' tests, and he was given a form letter

28
1nfonning him that his case would remain pending the completion of background checks and

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 16

GlE,BS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 &".,mnd AliI;, SI.Ii1C 1600
St:att.1c, WA 98104 (206)682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 17 of 26

not to inquire for four months following interview. lIe was not given notice at the interview
2 of hi. remedies under 8 U.S.C. § 1446 and § 1447 as required by law. Plaintiff Al Yim is
3
eligible for naturalization, meets all of the requirements for naturalization, and would have
4
5 been approved for naturalization if CIS had properly followed and implemented the statute.

36. Koy Fou Saepham (A25-023-102), i•• Laotian refugee who i" a pennanent
7
resident since 1984. She resides in Sealtie, Washington. She is married to a United States
8
9 citizen and is the mother of five U.S. citizen children. On or about September 2002, she
!O applied for naturalization. She wa..oe; fingerprinted and prior to her interview, tho FBI
II
provided the CIS with a complete criminal background check. She was interviewed by CIS
12
I3 on March 27, 2003. On information and belief, she passed the English language and history
14 and government test. At the interview she was given a request for additiona.l documentation
15
concerning a 1993 perjury arrestl of which she was acquitted after a jury tri!l.l. She was not
l6
17 notified at the interview of her remedies under 8 U.S.C. §1446 and §1447 .. required by law.
" She was given a "Blue Room" letter to use when TCturning the infonnation; a Blue Room
I'
letter is used when a piece of documentation is missing that is necessary to eonclude an
20
21 otherwise approved file. Ms, Saepham timely provided the infonnation requested, and
22 brought in other documentation a few months later. No decision has been made on her
23
naturalization application, despite numerous in-person inquiries, When she inquired about
24
the status of her case! CIS told her to wait, but has never infonned her that she could go to

26 federal court after a 120 day delay, Both Ms, Saepharn and her husband are active members
27
and leaders of the Yiu Mienh American Baptist Church! and wish to do international

ministry. She has been unable to participate in international ministry due to her lack of

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ~ 17

UlBBS HOllSTON ?AUW
1000 Second Avc. Suitc 1600 Seattle, WA 9/l1 04 (206) 5!!2-1 O!!O

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 18 of 26

citizenship and inability to obtain a passport to travel. Ms. Sacpham meets all of the

2 requirements for naturalization and would have been approved for naturalization if CIS
l
properly followed and implemented the statute.
4

j

37. Endeshaw Sabe (A44·895.157) is a citi7.en of Eritrea who has been a

6 pelIDanent resident since 1995. He resides in Lynnwood, Washington. He is married and
7
, has a citizen daughter. On February 18,2003, he applied for naturalization. He was

9 flngerprinted and~ prior to his interview, the FBI provided the CI'S with a complete criminal

iO background check. He was interviewed by CIS on October 8. 2003. lIe passed the English
II
language: and history and government test. At the interview he was given a request for

13 additional documentation concerning thc termination of his prior marriage. He sent the 14 information to CIS on that same day. He was not notified at the interview cfhis remedies

under 8 U.S.C. §1446 and §1447 as required by law. No decision has been made on his
16
17 naturalization application, dcspitc numerous in-person inquiries. Mr. Sabe wishes to obtain
18 his citizenship so that his wife can adjust her status to permanent resident. V{ithout his
19
citizenship, shc win have to wait over ten years to obtain permanent resident status through
20
21 the ..yloo adjustment process under INA § 209, due to a backlog of 150,000 other
22 applicants. Mr. Sabc meets all of the requirements for naturalization and would have been
" approved for naturalization if CIS properly followed and implemented the statute.
24
38. All named plaintiffs have exhausted all available administrative remedies.
" " Those plaintiffs whllse applications have been denied have the righllll obtain this Cou,!.', de
27 novo judicial review pursuanl to INA § 310(c). 8 V.S.c. § 1421(c)
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 18

GmBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 Secolld Ave. Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 9KIf14 (206) 6R2-1f180

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 19 of 26

BACKGROUND

2

39. United States law allows p."ons who have heen residing in the United Slate as

1

lawful permanent residents to become citizens through naturalization. A person seeking to
4

5 become a naturalized citizen must meet several statutory requiremenL,:>: (1) an understanding

6 of the English language. history. and civics of the United States. INA § 312. 8 U.S.C. §
7
, 1423; (2) a sufficient period of physical presence in the United States, INA §316(a), 8 U.s.C.
9 § 1427(a); and (3) good moral character, INA §316(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1427(d). III addition, an

10 applicant for naturalization must not fall under any of the grounds of ineligibility, for
" example, being an advocate or member of any organization that teaches opposition to all
12
13 organized government. INA § 313(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1424(a). The Service "shall grant the

14 application if the applicant has cnmplied with all requirements for naturaliz.ation under this

15
chapter." 8 C.F.R. § 335.3
16

17

40. The Immigration and Nationality Act defines cerlain conduct and convictions

18 that will predude a person from demonstrating good moral character. JNA § 101 (I). 8
19
U.S.C. § 1101(1). For instance, a conviction of an "aggravated felony." as well as certain
20
21 convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. may make a person statutorily inl?ligible to

22 demon.trate good moral character. INA § 101 (I) (3), (8); 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (fl (3), (8). None of

2]
the plaintiffs have convictions for aggravated felonies per 8 U.S.C. §1101 (a) (43). nor f",

24

" crimes involving moral turpitude, as that term has been defined in the case law.

26

41. The regulation. promulgated by the former Immigration and Naturalization

" Service specify Ihe acts that will disable a person as a matter of law from showing good

moral character. 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(I), (2). However, the regulations go beyond the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 19

Gums HOUSTON fAUW 1000 Second Ave. Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 9&] 04 (206) 6&2-1 UW

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 20 of 26

statutory preclusions and prevent certain other persons from dem(Jnstrating good moral
2 character even though they are eligible under lhe stalule. The regulations provide that a
3
4 person who has, in the five years preceding the application, "[cJommilled unlawful acts that

5 adversely reflect upon lhe applicant's moral character," even though such acts do not rail
6 under the mandatory ineligibility grounds, "shall be found 10 lack good morol character,"
7
, "[uJnless the applicant establishes extenuating circumslances." 8 CFR § 316.1 o(b)(3)(iii) .
9 The regulations also prohibit the government from approving on good moral characler

10 grounds a person who is on probation, parole. or who has a suspended sentence, regardless of
" the underlying charge or conviction, Id, § 316. 10 (c) (1). This regulatory provision
12
II disqualifles naturalization applicants who are eligible under the statute.

14

42. Defendants have failed to follow the provisions of the naturalization slalule

IS
and their own regulations requiring timely adjudication "f the applications. Instead.
16

17 Defendants have delayed and denied the applications of persons with arrest:'! or criminal

J8 convictions, even when good moral character is not implicated by the arrest or convicfion,
J9
43. Defendants have a policy and practice of requiring perfect moral character for
20
It naturalization, when Congress chose to require merely '"good'" moral character.

22

44. Defendants have a policy and practice "funlawfully denying naturalization on

23 the basis of minor arrests or criminal convictions for crimes. even though the applicant has
l4
"good moral character" as that term is intended in the statute
25

26

45. Defendant, have a policy and practice of unlawfully denying naturalization by

27 considering only evidence relating to the lack of good moral character. in particular any
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 20

G1BBS HOUSTON PAI]W 1000 Sl:'l.'OOd A.vo;, Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 98104(206) 682·1080

r-------------
Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28

-----------
Filed 06/29/2004 Page 21 of 26

record of arrest or conviction, without taking into account any counterbalancing positive
, evidence of good moral character.
3
46. Defendants' notices of denial of naturalization applications, or appeals of such
4
5 denials. fail to provide notice to applicants sufficient to advise them of the basis of the

6 denial. and to create an adequate record for administrative and/or judicial review.
7
, Defendanls denial notices fail to comply with their own regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 336.1 (b).

,

47. Defendants, when they request applicants to provide conviction or arrest

to records, have a policy and practice of nat requesting evidence of good moral character that
II
would allow Defendants to make an evaluation of all the circumstances relating to good
12
13 moral character.

14

48. Defendants have a policy and practice of unlawfully delaying naturalization

" adjudications. CIS regulations require a denial or grant of the naturalization not more than
16
17 120 days after the interview. 8 C.F.R. §§ 335.3, 336.1

18

49_ Even though an applicant has been determined after interview to have met all

19
the statutory requirement~ fnr naturalization, Defendants have a policy and practice of not
20
21 granting naturalization to certain applicants for an indefinite period. These periods

22 frequently exceed 120 days after interview while CIS awaits a "name check" of the

13 applicant. "Name checks" arc an administrative procedure that occurs prior to final
24
approval, and arc in addition to the fingerprint-based, FBI record checks that are done on all
"
26 applicants prior to the initial interview. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b}. There is no statutory eligibility

27 requirement that applicants (who have completed an FBI background cheel,) must also pass a
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 21

GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW lOoe SC:l;o\md Ave. Suilt 1600
Selt~tlj,\ WA 98104 (206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 22 of 26

post-interview "name check." Defendants' requirement of a ~name check" clearance is ultra

2 vires.
1
50,
4

Defendants have a policy and practice of not complying with the statutory

5 requirement to, "at the examination, inform the petitioner of the remedies available to the

6 applicant under section 336," which includes the right to seek a district court determination
7
, of applications delayed more than 120 days after interview. INA §§ 335(b), 336(b), 8 U.S.c.

9 §§ 1446(b), 1447(b).

10

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

II
51. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons
12

\3 similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedures 23(a) and 23(b). The class, as

14 proposed by Plaintiffs, consists of:

15

All persons who have applied or will apply ror naturalization in the jurisdiction of the

16

Seattle District Office, and who have heen or may be denied on or after May t 1998

17

on the basis of a lack of good moral character, or whose application remains pending

for more than 120 days after the initial examination.

I.
52. The requirements afRules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are met in that: the class is so

19

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (Plaintiffs estimate that there arc over
20

21 3,000 class members): there are questions of law and fact common to the class (including but

not limited to whether Defendants have a policy or practice of applying the good moral
23
character standard incorrectly, whether the Defendallls provide proper notice to
"
25 naturalization applicants, and whether the Defendants unlawfully delay applications): the
26 c1ainls of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class: the representative
27
parties will fairly alld adequately represent the interests of the class because they are
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 22

GIF:BS HOUSTONPAUW 1000 Second Ave. Suite 1600
&mttk. WA981U4 (206) 682-\ 080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 23 of 26

represented by pro bono counsel with extensive expertise in class action litigation regarding

2 the rights of immigrants; .nd the party opposing the class has acted on grounds generally
3
applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the
4

l class as a whole,

6

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

7

,

53, Plaintiffs reallege and by this reference incorporate the allegations contained in

, paragraphs 1 through 52.

10

54. Defendant" regulations, policy and practice of denying naturalization on the

II
basis of minor arrests or criminal convictions for crimes that do not reflect on a person's
12

" good moral character is unlawful and inconsistent with, inlerali., INA §§ 101 (t), 335, 8
t4 u.s.C. §§ 1446, 1101 (t), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq. of the Administrative Procedures Act. and

15
Duc Process,
16

17

55. Defendants' policy and practice of denying naturalization by considering only

tS evidence of lack of good moral character, without taking into account any counterbalancing
19
positive evidence of good moral character, is unlawful and inconsIstent with. inter alia, INA
20
21 §§ 101 (t), 335, 8 U.S.c. §§ 1101 (fl, 1146,5 U.S.C. §§ 551. et seq. of the Administrative

22 Procedures Act, and Due Process.
23
56, Defend.nts' policy and practice of issuing denial notices which failta
24
25 adequately explain the basis for the finding of lack of good moral character is unlawful and
26 inconsistent with, illter alia, INA §§ 101 (I), 335, 8 U,S,c. §§ 1101 (t), 1446, 5 U.S.C. §§

27 551, et seq. of the Administrative Procedures Act, and Due Process.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 23

GIHBS HOUSTON PAUW
1000 :iecond Ave. Suite loun Seattlol. WA 91\104
(206) 6l\2-10!\O

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 24 of 26

57. Defendants policy and practice ufrequesting additional evidence regarding

2
arrests or convictions without notifying the applicant that he or she may provide addilional
3
evidence of good moral character, or thal evidence of lack of good moral character must be
4
, considered along with evidence of good moral character is un lawful and inconsistenl with,

6 inter a/ja. INA §§ 101 (I). 335. 8 U.S.c. §§ 1101 (I), 1446, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, er seq. of the
7
Administrative Procedures Act. and Due Process,
8

9

58. Defendants' policy and practice of delaying naturalization adjudications mare

10 than 120 days after interview is unlawful and inconsistent with. inter alia. INA § 335. 8
II
u.s.c. § 1446, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551. et seq. uflhe Administrative Procedures Act, and Due
12
IJ Process.

14

59. Defendanl, policy and practice of not infnrming applicants of (heir right (0

15
apply for a determination by a Federal District Court in the case of delay of mare than 120
16

17 days after t.he date of an examination is unlawful and inconsistent with, ;ntE'r alia, INA §§

18 335, 336 (b) , 8 U.S.c. §§ 1446, 1447(b), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551. et seq. of the Administrative

19
Procedures Act. and Due Process.
20

21

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court:

23
L Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

24

25

2. Cerlify this case as a class action lawsuit, as proposed herein;

26

3. Reopen and readjudicatc at no additional cost all class members' naturalization

27 cases which have been unlawfully denied;

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 24

GIIUlS HOUSTON PAUW moo Second Av\:. SL.lll!;: 1600
SClittk, WA 98104
(206) 682-1080

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 25 of 26

4. Order Defendants to a"judieate within 60 days all class members' (other than
2 named plaintiffs) applications that have been pending due to delay;
3
5. Review de novo and decide the applications of those individual named
4
, plaintiffs whose applications are pending Over 120 days after the initial examination:

6

6. Order Defendants to provide written notice to all class members that the class

7
members may provide good moral characler evidence in support of their application,
8

9 particularly where there is any criminal record:

10

7. Order Defendants to provide writt.en notice to all class mcmbtrs whose cases

It
remain pending over 120 days following their first examination, that they may petition the
12

" Federal District Court for a hearing on their application. and that prevailing applicants may

14 seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §

15
2412:
16

17

8.

Issue a declaratoIY judgment that Defendants' challenged regulations, poliCies

IS and practices are in violatinn nfthe Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative

19
Procedures Act, and U,e Due Process guarantees of the Constitution:

20

21

9. Issue a permanent injunction requiring that Defendants provide written notice

22 to all naturalization appHcants that an appllcant may provide good moral character evidence

21
in support of their application, and that the applicant may petition, in case of a denial or

" delay, the Federal District Court for a hearing:

"

10. Review de novo and decide the applications ofthose individual plaintiffs who

27 have been denied on good mora1character grounds and who have exhausteci their

" administrative remedies. and grant them naturalization:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT· 25

Gl.l:l liS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 Second A~e. Suite 1600
Se.1Itle, WA 981 04 (206)6i:!i2.10i:!iO

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 28 Filed 06/29/2004 Page 26 of 26

11. If necessary. order that a hearing take place in this matter:

2
12. Award reasonable costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to
J
Justice Act; and
4

,

13. Grant any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.

6

Dated this 17th day of June, 2004.

1
,
,

10
II 12
11 14 IS J6
11 IS 19

Robert H. Gibbs WSBA No. 5932
Robert Pauw WSBA No. 13613
Christopher Strawn WSIlA ~o. 32243
GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 Second Ave, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 9.8104 Phone: 206-682-1080 Fax:206-689-Z270
Paul Soreff WSBA No. 29213
American Immigration
Laywers Ass(J.;:iation (AILA) 999 Third AV"., Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98104

20

"

2J 24

21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT· 26

GJE.BS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 Second Ave. SUIte 1600
Sealtl.; WA 98104 (206) fifi2-10fiO

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 216 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 1 of 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

8

_________________________________

9

)

KICHUL LEE, et al.,

)

10

)

Plaintiffs,

) Case No. C04-0449RSL

11

v.

)

)

12 MICHAEL MUKASEY,

) ORDER REGARDING SECOND

Attorney General et al.,

) MOTION TO ENFORCE

13

) COMPLIANCE

Defendants.

)

14

)

_________________________________)

15

16

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Second Motion to

17 Enforce Compliance.” Dkt. # 210. Plaintiffs seek (1) a declaration that defendants are

18 not in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement because a high percentage

19 of class members’ applications have been pending for more than the “normal Seattle

20 District Office processing time” (Settlement Agreement at ¶ 4C) and (2) an order

21 compelling defendants to make additional information available to ensure future 22 compliance with the Settlement Agreement.1

23

“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed

24 by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” O’Neil v.

25 Bunge Corp., 365 F.3d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 2004). Under Washington law, the purpose of

26 contract interpretation is to ascertain the parties’ intent at the time of contracting. See,

27

28

1 Defendants’ unopposed motion to supplement their opposition (Dkt. # 215) is GRANTED.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 1

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 216 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 2 of 6

1 e.g., Berg. v. Hudesman, 115 Wn.2d 657, 663 (1990) (quoting A. Corbin, The

2 Interpretation of Words and the Parol Evidence Rule, 50 Cornell L. Quar. 161, 162

3 (1965)). “Determination of the intent of the contracting parties is to be accomplished by

4 viewing the contract as a whole, the subject matter and objective of the contract, all the

5 circumstances surrounding the making of the contract, the subsequent acts and conduct of

6 the parties to the contract, and the reasonableness of respective interpretations advocated

7 by the parties.” Stender v. Twin City Foods, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 250, 254 (1973).

8

As noted in the Court’s prior order, the phrase “normal Seattle District

9 Office processing time” is purposefully vague. The parties intended to ensure that class

10 members were treated the same as other applicants for naturalization without unduly

11 limiting USCIS’ ability to investigate and consider each application on its merits. That

12 does not mean that the phrase is meaningless, however. A review of USCIS documents

13 issued since the Settlement Agreement was signed shows that the normal processing time 14 for N400 applications filed before June 2007 fluctuated between five and ten months.2

15 Although the five-to-ten month time frame is not a guarantee, where an application is

16 subject to delays beyond what is normally expected, the burden falls on defendants to

17 explain why it could not be adjudicated within the “normal” processing time.

18

Defendants have identified eight reasons why an application could be

19 delayed beyond ten months:

20

(1) USCIS is awaiting the results of the background check from the FBI;

(2) USCIS is awaiting the criminal history records from the FBI; (3) USCIS

21

is awaiting a response from the applicant to a request for evidence; (4) the

22

application is pending eligibility review by an Adjudications Officer; (5)

the
23

24
2 See, e.g., http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a 25 7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c77
55cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&reqPageNum=13 and https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ 26 officeProcesstimes.jsp?selectedOffice=73. There is evidence that the five-to-ten month time frame may
not apply to applications filed after June 1, 2007. USCIS experienced a significant increase in the number 27 of applications filed last summer and, despite efforts to hire additional immigration officers, the increase is
already having an adverse impact on the “normal” processing time for N400 applications in the Seattle 28 Field Office.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 2

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 216 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 3 of 6

1

application is pending review by a Supervisor; (6) the application [sic] is

pending an interview; (7) the applicant has moved outside the jurisdiction

2

of the Seattle Field Office and their application has been transferred to the

3

appropriate office; and (8) the applicant failed to sign the application.

4 Opposition at 3. It is not entirely clear which of these eight reasons defendants believe

5 justifies an extraordinary delay in processing an application. The Court will therefore

6 address each of them.

7

Reasons numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are too general to explain any particular

8 delay suffered by one or more class members. By entering into the Settlement

9 Agreement, defendants voluntarily undertook a contractual duty to adjudicate class

10 members’ N400 applications within the “normal Seattle District Office processing time.”

11 By definition, the “normal Seattle District Office processing time” includes the time it

12 takes to conduct criminal history and background checks, review the file, conduct an

13 interview, and reach a decision on the application. The fact that another agency is

14 involved in the review process does not, in and of itself, excuse defendants’ failure to

15 comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Nor can the foreseeable and

16 expected need for agency action justify extraordinary delay. Defendants have made no

17 effort to explain the discrepancy between the “normal” processing time in the Seattle

18 Field Office and the significant delays experienced by many of the individual class

19 members. Nor have they presented evidence regarding the progress made on any

20 particular application or the efforts they have undertaken to obtain information from the

21 FBI in a timely manner. The fact that N400 applications go through a series of reviews at

22 two different agencies does not explain why certain applications are processed within five

23 to ten months and others have languished for years.

24

On the other hand, an incomplete application or an applicant’s failure to

25 respond to a request for additional information can justify an extraordinary delay.3

26

27
3 See Dkt. # 205 at 3 (“The normal processing time, barring an incomplete application or the 28 recalcitrance of the applicant (neither of which is alleged here), is seven months.”).

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 3

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 216 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 4 of 6

1 Defendants have provided evidence that one class member, Khai Cao Truong, submitted

2 an unsigned application and has not remedied the situation since it was brought to his

3 attention in March 2007. The Court finds that the delay in adjudicating this particular

4 application is reasonable and no breach has been shown. Defendants have not, however,

5 presented sufficient evidence from which the Court could conclude that any other

6 applicant caused an application to be delayed past the ten month “normal” time frame. In

7 their quarterly status report, defendants generally indicate only that a certain event has or 8 has not occurred.4 There is no indication of the date on which the event, such as the

9 filing of a renewed N400 application or the issuance of a request for additional

10 information, took place. It is therefore impossible to tell how much of the twenty-three

11 month delay in processing James Swaka’s N400 application, for example, was the result

12 of agency inaction as opposed to the applicant’s failure to respond to the N-14 request for

13 information. If the N-14 were issued recently, it would not justify defendants’ previous

14 failure to adjudicate the application in the “normal Seattle District Office processing

15 time.”

16

Finally, defendants note that two applicants have moved outside the

17 jurisdiction of the Seattle Field Office. Neither party has addressed the legal significance

18 of this change. The Court is unable to determine whether the relocation of a class

19 member releases defendants from their contractual duty to process the renewed

20 application within ten months.

21

Piecing together the information provided by the parties in their

22 declarations, the Court finds that at least thirty-three class members filed their

23 applications for naturalization before June 2007 and did not receive a decision within the

24

25

4 In some instances, the information provided in the status reports is ambiguous and, therefore,

unhelpful. For example, a check mark in the column titled “Name checks status” has no inherent meaning

26 because a check mark is not responsive to an inquiry regarding “status.” Does the check mark indicate

that an applicant has successfully completed the name check process? It could mean that a name check

27 has been requested or that the FBI has identified a problem such that further delays should be expected.

Defendants’ report is so abbreviated that it provides no reliable information regarding the status of the

28 name check inquiry.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 4

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 216 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 5 of 6

1 “normal Seattle District Office processing time” of ten months.5 Defendants argue that

2 some of these delays were caused by the applicant’s failure to respond to an N-14 request

3 for additional information, but they have failed to produce evidence from which the Court

4 could conclude that the extraordinary delays were the fault of the applicants and not the

5 agency. The Court therefore finds that defendants are not in compliance with paragraph

6 4.C. of the Settlement Agreement. Defendants shall complete their review and

7 adjudication of these thirty-three applications within thirty days of the date of this Order 8 or shall file a status report stating individualized reasons for any continuing delay.6

9

Plaintiffs have not argued, and the Court declines to find, that defendants

10 have breached their reporting obligations under paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement.

11 The Court notes, however, that defendants’ check-filled quarterly report provides very

12 little information that plaintiffs or the Court could use in implementing the agreement.

13 Rather than mandate the production of additional data, the Court has placed on

14 defendants the burden of justifying extraordinary delays in processing class members’

15 N400 applications. The failure to provide dates for key events in the processing of a

16

17

5 The thirty-three individuals are:

18

V. Adamovici

Z. Akhverdyan

J. Cervantes-Torres

P. Chim

19

O. De Dios

R. Gasparyan

W. Hom

R. Katru

20

P. Le

H. Lee

R. Morales

Tinh Nguyen

21

X. Nguyen

C. Ocampo

M. Olkusz

L. Pham

22

A. Simongkhonh

B. Singh

S. Sou

M. Spacek

23

B. Vo

M. Watson

N. Amira K. Chong X. Huang M. Kawcznksi L. Mekkhavong-Davis Tu Nguyen K. Oh N. Prasad H. Singh J. Swaka B. Yevstingneyev

24 Mr. H. Singh’s application was recently denied.

25

6 Because any analysis of defendants’ future compliance with the Settlement Agreement requires

guidance regarding the “normal” processing time for applications filed on or after June 1, 2007, the Court

26 will accept defendants’ representations and presume that the “normal Seattle District Office processing

time” for such applications is fifteen months. Defendants have the burden of explaining any processing

27 delays in excess of that time frame. The fifteen-month presumption is rebuttable, such that the parties

may submit evidence that the processing time for applications filed on or after June 1, 2007, is, in fact,

28 longer or shorter than that presumed by the Court based on the current record.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 5

Case 2:04-cv-00449-RSL Document 216 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 6 of 6

1 particular application will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to

2 conclude that an extraordinary delay is reasonable and justified.

3

4

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to enforce compliance is

5 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

6

7

Dated this 19th day of May, 2008.

8

9

A

Robert S. Lasnik

10

United States District Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 6

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

8

_________________________________

9

)

KICHUL LEE, et al.,

)

10

)

Plaintiffs,

) NO. C04-0449RSL

11

v.

)

)

12 ALBERTO R. GONZALES,

) ORDER REGARDING MOTION

Attorney General et al.,

) TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE

13

)

Defendants. )

14

)

_________________________________)

15

16

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion to Enforce

17 Compliance.” Dkt. # 199. Plaintiffs seek a declaration and corresponding order that

18 defendants are not in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement insofar as

19 they (1) initially rejected applications for naturalization from persons who were on

20 probation and (2) have not processed these applications “in normal Seattle District

21 processing time.” Settlement Agreement at ¶ 4C.

22

The motion to enforce compliance is moot as to the first issue. The parties

23 apparently had a disagreement regarding whether persons on probation were class

24 members, but the issue was resolved in plaintiffs’ favor without Court intervention.

25 Regardless of whether defendants’ initial interpretation of the Settlement Agreement was

26 justified or not, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) is now considering

27 applications for naturalization from all class members in compliance with the agreement:

28 an order compelling such action is therefore unnecessary.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 1

1

The phrase “normal Seattle District processing time” in the Settlement

2 Agreement is purposely vague. Based on general principals of contract interpretation, the

3 Court finds that the parties intended to ensure that class members were treated the same

4 as other applicants for naturalization without unduly limiting CIS’ ability to investigate 5 and consider each application on its merits. The record1 suggests that, as of October 15,

6 2007, the normal processing time for applications for naturalization was seven months.

7 The seven-month time frame is not a guarantee, however. The “normal” processing time

8 can be extended if additional information is needed or if the applicant does not cooperate

9 throughout the interview process.

10

Plaintiffs argue that defendants are not in compliance with the Settlement

11 Agreement because an application submitted by Abdisimad Ali in August 2006 is still

12 pending. The application was initially rejected because CIS believed he was not a class

13 member. By the time CIS agreed to accept Ali’s application on April 18, 2007, his

14 service file had already been shipped to the Refugee Affairs Division so that it could

15 adjudicate his mother’s application for refugee status. Despite repeated assurances that

16 the service file would be returned from the Refugee Affairs Division in the near future,

17 there has been no progress on Ali’s application.

18

The Court is not concerned with defendants’ failure to process Ali’s

19 application between August 2006 and April 2007: that delay was caused by a

20 misunderstanding regarding the scope of the settlement and, as far as CIS was concerned,

21 the application was not pending during that period. The delay after April 18, 2007,

22 however, while not yet enough to warrant sanctions, is of concern. When Ali resubmitted

23 his application for naturalization eight months ago, he was told that HQ would return his

24 service file and that an interview would be scheduled shortly. Plaintiffs waited five

25 months to seek to compel action on his application, at which point defendants said that

26

27

1 Much, if not all, of the “evidence” submitted by the parties on this issue is inadmissible, but the

Court is willing to assume that the website information provided by plaintiffs could be authenticated and

28 that a signed version of Ms. Harrison’s declaration could be presented by defendants.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 2

1 the file would be returned in a “few weeks.” Declaration of Julia L. Harrison at ¶ 7.

2 Apparently in reliance on defendants’ representation, plaintiffs continued their motion to

3 enforce compliance until October 19, 2007, and then again until November 16, 2007.

4 Despite plaintiffs’ patience, the service file is still with the Refugee Affairs Division and

5 Ali’s application remains in limbo.

6

This is not a case in which CIS has been compelled to wait for another

7 agency or foreign government to act. Defendants have, and have always had, Ali’s

8 service file – it just happens to be in an office other than the Seattle Field Office. Despite

9 the fact that defendants are under a contractual obligation to process Ali’s application for

10 naturalization “in normal Seattle District processing time,” they have made no effort to do

11 so. The normal processing time, barring an incomplete application or the recalcitrance of

12 the applicant (neither of which is alleged here), is seven months. Ali is fast approaching

13 the nine-month mark and CIS has not even begun reviewing his application on the merits.

14 There is no indication that the Seattle Field Office has impressed upon the Refugee

15 Affairs Division its contractual need to process Ali’s application, that the Refugee Affairs

16 Division has made any attempt to expedite its handling of Ali’s file, or that defendants

17 have even requested a copy of the service file if the original is truly unavailable. The

18 reasons for this continuing delay range from bureaucratic incompetence at best to a

19 blatant disregard of defendants’ settlement obligations at worst: whatever the cause, Ali

20 has waited long enough.

21

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants are hereby ORDERED to

22 process Abdisimad Ali’s application for naturalization within thirty days from the date of

23 this Order. If the original service file cannot be overnighted from the Refugee Affairs

24 Division without unduly interfering with its operations, a copy should be obtained

25 forthwith. Failure to process Ali’s application within the thirty-day period will result in

26 monetary sanctions of $25 per day unless defendants show good cause, prior to the

27

28

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 3

1 expiration of the thirty-day period, why the period should be extended.2

2

3

Dated this 2nd day of January, 2008.

4

5

A

Robert S. Lasnik

6

United States District Judge

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2 In their reply memorandum, plaintiffs argue that Ali is simply an example of the many

probationers whose applications for naturalization have not been processed in “normal” time. They cite

26 Balwant Singh as another example, but provide no information regarding when CIS accepted his

application. The Court cannot, on such scant evidence, determine whether Singh’s application has been

27 pending longer than the “normal” seven months or whether the circumstances of Singh’s case, such as the

need for additional information or a failure to appear for an interview, explain any additional delay that

28 may exist.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE - 4

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

8

_________________________________

9

)

KICHUL LEE, et al.,

)

10

)

Plaintiffs,

) Case No. C04-0449RSL

11

v.

)

)

12 MICHAEL MUKASEY,

) THIRD ORDER REGARDING

Attorney General et al.,

) ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

13

)

Defendants.

)

14

)

_________________________________)

15

16

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Status Report

17 Regarding Order Regarding Second Motion to Enforce Compliance” (Dkt. # 217) and

18 “Defendants’ Second Status Report Regarding Order on Second Motion to Enforce

19 Compliance” (Dkt. # 259).

20

Defendants voluntarily undertook a contractual duty to adjudicate class

21 members’ N400 applications within the “normal Seattle District Office processing time.”

22 In previous orders, the Court found that defendants are not meeting their settlement

23 obligations and ordered the prompt adjudication of thirty-four applications or a statement

24 of individualized reasons for any continuing delay. Dkt. # 205 and # 216. The Court

25 specifically noted that the pendency of an FBI background or name check was an

26

27

28

THIRD ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT - 1

1 unacceptable explanation for extraordinary delays.1 Dkt. # 216 at 3. Nevertheless,

2 defendants again rely on generalized excuses, particularly the FBI’s involvement, when

3 explaining why a number of applications have not yet been processed. Defendants even

4 express surprise that they might be expected “to obtain information regarding the

5 applicants’ name checks from the FBI” and request at least six weeks if such information

6 is required. Reply at 2.

7

The source of defendants’ surprise and confusion is unclear. The excuses

8 on which defendants rely were already found to be insufficient. Defendants were

9 informed on May 19, 2008, that they must provide specific information regarding a

10 particular application in order to justify an extraordinary delay in processing time and that

11 they cannot rely on activities that are undertaken with regards to every applicant. If

12 applications could not be timely processed because of name check delays, the Court

13 demanded the kind of detailed information that was clearly within the FBI’s ken. Why

14 efforts were not made to acquire the relevant information from the FBI during the past

15 three months is inexplicable.

16

Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the remainder of the

17 record in this matter, it is hereby ORDERED that:

18

(1) Defendants shall, within seven days of the date of this Order, review and

19 amend the information provided to plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the

20 Settlement Agreement to include the date on which defendants received the class

21 members’ N400 applications. The receipt dates of applications that have already been

22 adjudicated need not be provided. Defendants shall, to the best of their ability, ensure

23 that the receipt dates are accurate based on the primary documents, authenticated records,

24 and/or consultation with plaintiffs’ counsel.

25
1 “Reasons numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are too general to explain any particular delay suffered by 26 one or more class members. . . . By definition, the ‘normal Seattle District Office processing time’
includes the time it takes to conduct criminal history and background checks, review the file, conduct an 27 interview, and reach a decision on the application. . . . The fact that N400 applications go through a series
of reviews at two different agencies does not explain why certain applications are processed within five to 28 ten months and others have languished for years.” Dkt. # 216 at 3.

THIRD ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT - 2

1

(2) The normal processing time for N400 applications in the Seattle Field Office

2 has varied over time. For purposes of this Order, the Court adopts the following

3 “normal” time frames:

4

(a) N400 applications filed before June 2007 – 10 months

5

(b) N400 applications filed in June 2007 – 15 months

6

(c) N400 applications filed between July 1, 2007, and the present – 12 months

7

(3) Although the stated time frames are not guarantees, where an application is

8 subject to delays beyond what is normally expected, the burden falls on defendants to

9 explain why the application could not be adjudicated within the “normal” processing time.

10 After complying with paragraph (1) above, defendants shall, within twenty-one days of the

11 date of this Order, provide detailed and specific information regarding the processing of

12 any applications that have not been adjudicated within the “normal” processing time.

13 Activities included in the processing of all applications, such as conducting criminal

14 history and background checks, reviewing the file, scheduling and conducting an

15 interview, and reaching a decision on the application, cannot explain extraordinary delays.

16 If FBI involvement is blamed for a delay, defendants shall provide the date on which the

17 FBI’s services were requested, the date that a request for expedited review was made,

18 what phase(s) of the review process has been completed, what information was discovered

19 that has delayed the processing, the expected date by which the issues raised will be 20 resolved, and any other information that might provide good cause for the delay.2 If an

21 outstanding N-14 request for additional information is the purported cause of a delay,

22 defendants shall identify the information or lack thereof that prompted the request and the

23 date on which defendants were first aware of the problem. While information or

24 deficiencies that first appeared at the interview may justify additional delay, issues that

25 were apparent for months but were not acted upon will probably not extend the “normal”

26 processing time absent good cause.

27
2 If the information regarding the FBI’s activities presents a risk to national security, it may be 28 provided in camera with a summary to counsel.

THIRD ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT - 3

1

(4) The information required in paragraph (3) above shall be updated every two

2 months until all of the class members’ applications have been adjudicated.

3

4

Dated this 25th day of August, 2008.

5

6

A

Robert S. Lasnik

7

United States District Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIRD ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT - 4

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

8

_________________________________

9

)

KICHUL LEE, et al.,

)

10

)

Plaintiffs,

) Case No. C04-0449RSL

11

v.

)

)

12 ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of ) FOURTH ORDER REGARDING

the United States, et al.,

) ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

13

)

Defendants.

)

14

)

_________________________________)

15

16

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Response to

17 Defendants’ Status Report and Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement.” Dkt. # 288.

18 Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ fourth status report, which indicates that only one

19 class member was still awaiting adjudication of his N400 applications, is inaccurate.

20 Using government resources and the quarterly spreadsheet produced by defendants,

21 plaintiffs identified twelve additional individuals whose applications were purportedly

22 pending far longer than the normal Seattle District Office processing time.

23

In response, defendants submitted reports regarding the status of each of

24 the individuals identified by plaintiffs. One of the individuals was not a class member.

25 Four of the applications were denied for failure to appear for interviews, respond to

26 requests for information, and/or take the requisite oath. Five individuals have been

27 sworn in as citizens of the United States, and the last three will take the oath in the next

28 14-60 days.

FOURTH ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT - 1

1

Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by

2 the parties, defendants are directed to make every effort to schedule an oath ceremony

3 for J. D-S before the end of June 2009 and to continue to file bimonthly updates

4 regarding the status of Mahmoud Safarpour, M. Tsiklauri, and J. D-S. No other relief

5 is appropriate at this time.

6

7

Dated this 8th day of June, 2009.

8

A

9

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOURTH ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT - 2

 
 1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

7 _________________________________

)

8 KICHUL LEE, et al.,

)

)

9

Plaintiffs,

) Case No. C04-0449RSL

v.

)

10

)

ERIC HOLDER, et al.,

) ORDER GRANTING IN PART

11

) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Defendants.

)

12 ________________________________ )

13

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion for Attorneys’

14 Fees.” Dkt. # 329 and # 331. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and

15 exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds as follows:

16

Plaintiffs’ counsel have spent almost three and a half years monitoring

17 defendants’ activities to ensure that the United States Citizenship and Immigration

18 Services (“USCIS”) accurately identified class members and processed their

19 applications for naturalization as required by the Settlement Agreement between the

20 parties. Approximately eighteen months after final judgment was entered in this matter,

21 counsel moved from a purely monitoring role to an enforcement role. On August 17,

22 2007, plaintiffs notified the Court that class members were facing unwarranted delays

23 in the processing of their applications. Plaintiffs provided one example, and the Court

24 ordered defendants to process his application within thirty days or face monetary

25 sanctions. More importantly, the Court noted that, as of January 2008, class members’

26 applications should be processed within seven months absent an incomplete application

27 or recalcitrance on the part of the applicant. It took two more orders for defendants to

28 understand that their promise to adjudicate class members’ N400 applications within

ATTORNEY’S FEE ORDER - 1

1 the “normal Seattle District Office processing time” created a legally binding

2 obligation. Plaintiffs filed a total of four motions to enforce the settlement, with each

3 motion revealing unjustified and unacceptable delays, inaccurate or misleading

4 information, and a surprising lack of diligence on defendants’ part. Had plaintiffs’

5 counsel not pursued the rights of their clients long after final judgment was entered,

6 defendants might still be “processing” class members’ applications for naturalization.

7 As it was, it took over three years, until July 1, 2009, to obtain the relief defendants 8 agreed to provide in February 2006.1

9

Defendants’ failure to take the actions necessary to comply with the

10 Settlement Agreement and final judgment of this Court was not reasonable or justified.

11 The Court finds that defendants acted in bad faith and repeatedly forced plaintiffs to

12 seek judicial assistance and incur additional attorney’s fees. Defendants are therefore

13 liable for the fees expended in enforcing the Settlement Agreement under the Court’s

14 inherent powers (Chambers v. Nasco, 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991)) and the Equal Access

15 to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(b)). For the most part, plaintiffs carefully limited their

16 application for fees to those spent enforcing, rather than monitoring, the Settlement

17 Agreement. The Court finds, however, that fees incurred after July 1, 2009 (including fees

18 associated with the filing of this motion), were not related to a breach of the Settlement

19 Agreement and are therefore not recoverable.

20

21

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees is

22 GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of $58,897.50.

23

Dated this 24th day of September, 2009.

24

25

A

Robert S. Lasnik

26

United States District Judge

27

28

1 Plaintiffs’ request for fees is not untimely. This motion was filed less than thirty days after

defendants filed their last status report in this matter.

ATTORNEY’S FEE ORDER - 2

 
 NOTICEB

INDIVIDUAL NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement in Lee v. Gonzales, 04-449-RSL, the denial of your

uscrs previously filed application for naturalization has been reopened by the

to determine if

you are entitled to relief, which may include United States citizenship. You were denied

naturalization for lack of good moral character, and are being given an opportunity to have you

application for naturalization readjudicated to see if you meet the eligibility requirements for

naturalization. To see if you qualify for relief pursuant to the settlement agreement, you must

submit the enclosed new N-400 application. USCIS will waive the application fee and

fingerprint fee and you can submit this new application at no cost.

PLEASE NOTE This application MUST be submitted no later than twelve (12) months after
the date of this notice or 12 months after the date uscrs posts a general notice, whichever is
later. Applications received after these deadlines will not be considered for class membership or
further relief.

The completed N-400 must be submitted to the Seattle District Office at the address below:
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Attn: Lee v. Gonzales, C04-449-RSL 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Seattle, WA 98168

Upon receipt of your new N-400 application, USCIS will adjudicate your new N 400 application in accordance with normal Seattle District Office processing times and procedures, and in accordance with the procedures described in the Settlement Agreement. You may review the sellli::IIIt:nl a!geermmt at www.usvis.guv and www.ghp-law.uet.
Your application will be reviewed to determine if you currently meet all eligibility requirements for naturalization, pursuant to ~ U.S.C. § 1447(a) - (f), 1427, and 1430.
In determining whether you possess good moral character for purposes of naturalization in accordance with 8 C.F.R 316.10 and 8 U.S.C. 1101(f), the USCIS will make a case-by-case determination. The USCIS will consider both evidence of negative and positive factors, to the extent that such evidence relates to the applicant's moral character. Evidence of negative factors may include, but is not limited to: prior criminal record; the number of convictions; the seriousness of the criminal conduct; :mci whether the applicant has committed other violations of the law which are morally turpitudinous. Evidence demonstrating positive moral character may include, but is not limited to: evidence of rehabilitation; evidence offamily ties and relationships in the United States, including evidence of efforts to support a spouse and children, evidence of volunteer work or other work in the community; evidence of stable and responsible employment; character reference letters; employer letters; educational certificates; evidence of community or religious activities; payment of taxes; and military service. In making the decision conceiting

good moral character, USCIS shall not require perfect moral character. Instead, USeIS will make a determination, based on a consideration of all the evidence in the records, whether or not the applicant has good moral character.
If you have any questions regarding whether you may qualify for relief pursuant to the settlement agreement, you may contact class counsel at the address and phone number below:
Robert H. Gibbs Robert Pauw Christopher Strawn 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 682-1080 www.gbp-Iaw.net

 
 IMPORTANT NOTICE CONCERNING DENIAL OF CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS BY SEATTLE, YAKIMA OR SPOKANE IMMIGRATION
Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement in Lee v. Gonzales, C04-449RSL (W.D. Wash, U.S. D.C.), the Seattle District of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, or AUSCIS@ (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service, or AINS@) has agreed to reopen and reconsider some of its denials of citizenship, where the denial was for a lack of Agood moral character,@ usually because of a minor criminal record.
This reconsideration is at no additional fee, and will allow class members to submit additional evidence of good moral character, and have a decision made that is in compliance with the relevant legal standards.
Who is Eligible? With some exceptions, denied applicants are eligible to have their N - 400 applications reconsidered, without any additional filing fees, if
$ The application for citizenship was decided by the Seattle, Spokane or Yakima office of USCIS or INS, and
$ The application was denied for lack of good moral character, (usually for a minor criminal record) and
$ The denial was dated after May 4, 1998, but not if the application was filed after January 12, 2005.
Who is Not Eligible? Applicants who have already been naturalized, or who are statutorily barred from citizenship (most commonly due to a serious criminal conviction) under 8 U.S.C. ' 1101(f) are ineligible. For example, you are statutorily and permanently barred from citizenship if you have been convicted, of an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. ' 1101(a)(43), after November 29, 1990. You are barred temporarily from naturalization if, in the three/five year period before your N-400 application was filed, you committed a crime involving “moral turpitude.” This is not a complete list of the statutory and permanent bars. It is complicated to determine which crimes or convictions are statutory or permanent bars to citizenship. It is recommended that you consult with class counsel, or other competent immigration attorney to determine whether you should ask for reconsideration of your application.
Notice A

When Do I Apply? You must file your request within 12 months of the date that you get an individual notice from USCIS about this program, or within 12 months of March 17, 2006, whichever is later. If you miss this deadline, you may still be able to reapply for citizenship and pay the fees that are required, but you would not be within the class settlement procedures.
How do I File? Send a completed, new N400 application (without filing or biometric fees) to the Seattle District Office, at the following:
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Attn: Lee v. Gonzales, C04-449RSL
12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Seattle, WA 98168
It would be helpful, but not required, to provide a copy of the prior denial, or to inform USCIS when you applied, when you were denied and the reason for the denial. It is recommended that you keep a copy of what you file, as well as proof of mailing, for example, priority mail with confirmation of delivery. The current N-400 form is available at www.immigration.gov or from class counsel.
How Will USCIS Decide My Case? First, USCIS will decide if you are a class member that is covered by the settlement, as described above. If you are within the class, then USCIS will evaluate whether you meet all the eligibility requirements for citizenship, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ' '1427(a)(f), such as lawful permanent residence in the United States, and physical presence in the United States. If you have previously passed the history and English tests, or received a waiver of those requirements, you will not be required to retake those tests or submit a new waiver application. USCIS will notify you when to come in to submit updated fingerprints and photos. USCIS will conduct new background checks before making a final decision.
In determining whether you possess good moral character for purposes of naturalization in accordance with 8 C.F.R. ' 316.10 and 8 U.S.C. ' 1101(f), the USCIS will make a case by case determination based on the evidence that you provide or which the USCIS obtains. The USCIS will consider evidence of both negative and positive factors, to the extent
Notice A

that such evidence relates to your moral character.
Evidence of negative factors may include, but is not limited to: prior criminal record; the number of convictions; the seriousness of the criminal conduct; and whether the applicant has committed other violations of the law which are morally turpitudinous.
Evidence demonstrating positive moral character may include, but is not limited to: evidence of rehabilitation; evidence of family ties and relationships in the United States, including evidence of efforts to support a spouse and children; evidence of volunteer work or other work in the community; evidence of stable and responsible employment; character reference letters; employer letters; educational certificates; evidence of community or religious activities; payment of taxes; and military service. You may submit evidence of your good moral character so that USCIS may consider that together with any negative factors.
In making the decision concerning good moral character, USCIS shall not require perfect moral character. Instead, USCIS will make a determination, based on a consideration of all the evidence in the record, whether or not you have good moral character.
If USCIS determines that you do not have good moral character, then USCIS will issue a written decision that comports with 8 C.F.R. ' 336.1(b), and lists the pertinent facts upon which the determination was based, the specific legal sections applicable to a finding of ineligibility, and any other conclusions of law reached by the examining officer in rendering the decision. You may appeal a denial of your application, as provided in the law.
If USCIS determines that you meet the requirements for naturalization, you will be scheduled for an oath ceremony and issued a certificate of naturalization at that time.
What If USCIS Decides I Am Not a Class Member? If USCIS determines that you are not a class member entitled to relief under this settlement, they will send you a written notice explaining why they made that decision. You may contact class counsel if you have questions, or if you think the decision was mistaken.
Notice A

How Do I Contact Class Counsel? Class counsel is the law firm of Gibbs Houston Pauw, 1000 Second Ave., Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98104; 206-682-1080. Email: info@ghp-law.net. Internet: www.ghp-law.net. Class counsel can provide you with information about how the reopening procedures will work. Do not contact the court.
Notice A

 
 Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 1 of 28
CLOSED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04−cv−00449−RSL

Lee v. Ashcroft et al Assigned to: Judge Robert S. Lasnik Cause: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/27/2004 Date Terminated: 02/16/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Endeshaw Sabe

represented by Robert H. Gibbs GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVE STE 1600 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206−682−1080 Fax: FAX 689−2270 Email: rgibbs@ghp−law.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVE STE 1600 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206−682−1080 Fax: 206−689−2270 Email: devin@ghp−law.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kae Phou Saepharn

represented by Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Pauw GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 SECOND AVE STE 1600 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206−682−1080 Fax: FAX 689−2270 Email: rpauw@ghp−law.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Al Yim

represented by Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Pauw

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 2 of 28

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yassin Al Qureishi

represented by Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Raad Al Mansur

represented by Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Admir Burnazovic

represented by Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hans Hanspal

represented by Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 3 of 28

Plaintiff Ahmed Berhanu
Plaintiff Gun Lim

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Petitioner Kichul Lee
Petitioner Halima Al−Mamar

represented by Christopher Strawn NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA) 615 2ND AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206−957−8611 Email: chris@nwirp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 4 of 28

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Strawn (See above for address)

Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address)

Petitioner Abdul Al−Tamimi

represented by Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Strawn (See above for address)

Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address)

Petitioner Mohammed Al Amiri

represented by Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Strawn (See above for address)

Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address)

Petitioner Ashwin Prasad

represented by Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Strawn (See above for address)

Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address)

Petitioner Sam Ta

represented by Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 5 of 28

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Strawn (See above for address)

Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address)

Petitioner Nagham Almenar

represented by Robert Pauw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devin T Theriot−Orr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Strawn (See above for address)

Robert H. Gibbs (See above for address)

Petitioner Long Nhu Pham

represented by Long Nhu Pham A 1202 26TH ST EVERETT, WA 98201 425−258−3361 PRO SE

Petitioner Khounsavath Thatsana

represented by Khounsavath Thatsana 6225 MEYERS ST #112 W RICHLAND, WA 99353 PRO SE

Petitioner Seth Dom

represented by Seth Dom 3349 S 300TH PL AUBURN, WA 98001 PRO SE

Petitioner Harjit Singh

represented by Harjit Singh 32127 37TH PL S FEDERAL WAY, WA 98001 PRO SE

Petitioner
Jack Doan aka Dao Van Tran

represented by Jack Doan 30254 129TH AVE SE AUBURN, WA 98092 PRO SE

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 6 of 28

Petitioner Veniamin Ivanovich Melnik

represented by Veniamin Ivanovich Melnik 2114 NE 169TH AVE VANCOUVER, WA 98684 PRO SE

Petitioner Taama Naama Al−Musawi

represented by Taama Naama Al−Musawi #2524 11205 SE 208TH ST. KENT, WA 98030 PRO SE

Petitioner Juan Mejia Rodriguez

represented by Juan Mejia Rodriguez PO BOX 205 EVERSON, WA 98247 PRO SE

Petitioner Gabriel Madrid Velasquez

represented by Gabriel Madrid Velasquez 506 E 8TH AVE KENNEWICK, WA 99336 PRO SE

Petitioner Jose Trinidad Cervantes−Torres

represented by Jose Trinidad Cervantes−Torres 16877 LOOK OUT MT RD MONROE, WA 98272 PRO SE

Petitioner Rima Gasparyan

represented by Rima Gasparyan 2664 146TH AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98007 PRO SE

Petitioner Ha Thi Cam Tran

represented by Ha Thi Cam Tran 906 W ST NW AUBURN, WA 98001 PRO SE

Petitioner Francisco Gonzalez Gonzalez

represented by Francisco Gonzalez Gonzalez 2908 W ELLA PASCO, WA 99301 PRO SE

Petitioner Vikramdeep Singh

represented by Vikramdeep Singh 15816 53RD AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98188 PRO SE

Petitioner Rasaki Yusuff

represented by Rasaki Yusuff 717 107TH PLACE SOUTH EAST EVERETT, WA 98208

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 7 of 28

PRO SE

Petitioner Be Thi Ho

represented by Be Thi Ho 10636 17th AVE SW #C SEATTLE, WA 98146 PRO SE

Petitioner Martha Isabel Gallo−Padilla

represented by Martha Isabel Gallo−Padilla 226 SUNWILLOWS BLVD PASCO, WA 99301 PRO SE

Petitioner Hagos H Gebremariam

represented by Hagos H Gebremariam 3620 NE 73RD PL #3 SEATTLE, WA 98115 PRO SE

Petitioner Khanh Duc Nguyen

represented by Khanh Duc Nguyen 1032 S JACKSON ST #159 SEATTLE, WA 98104 PRO SE

Petitioner Nedko Ivanov Mochev

represented by Nedko Ivanov Mochev 11612 40TH AVE SOUTH SEATTLE, WA 98168 PRO SE

Petitioner Nancy Mai

represented by Nancy Mai #D107 14533 NE 35TH ST BELLEVUE, WA 98007 PRO SE

Petitioner Thanh Liem Nguyen

represented by Thanh Liem Nguyen 4202 S 137TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 PRO SE

Petitioner Eth Lothchomphou

represented by Eth Lothchomphou APT 236 5615 HIGHWAY PL EVERETT, WA 98203 PRO SE

V.
Respondent
John Ashcroft Attorney General of the United States

represented by Robert Seder UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 700 STEWART STREET

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 8 of 28

STE 5220 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Email: ecf−civ.usawaw@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/09/2005

Kristin Berger Johnson US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (SEA) 700 STEWART ST STE 5220 SEATTLE, WA 98101−1271 206−553−7970 Email: Kristin.B.Johnson@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia M Corrales−Talleda DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (CA) 300 N LOS ANGELES ST RM 8108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 213−894−8627 Email: Patricia.Corrales@DHS.GOV ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Tom Ridge Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

represented by Robert Seder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2005

Kristin Berger Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia M Corrales−Talleda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Robert J Okin Interim District Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security

represented by Robert Seder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2005
Kristin Berger Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia M Corrales−Talleda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Claimant Jose Natividad Frias Diaz

Intervenor
Anthony Onochie TERMINATED: 04/18/2005

represented by Anthony Onochie 15850 EXPORT PLAZA DR 26900480/B401B HOUSTON, TX 77032 PRO SE

Intervenor

represented by

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 9 of 28

Anthony Onochie TERMINATED: 04/18/2005

Anthony Onochie (See above for address) PRO SE

Date Filed 02/27/2004
05/04/2004
05/04/2004
05/06/2004 05/06/2004 05/06/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/20/2004 05/25/2004 06/01/2004 06/03/2004
06/03/2004
06/09/2004

# Docket Text
1 SEALED DOCUMENT 220 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR REVIEW against defendant(s) John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge (Summons(es) issued) (Receipt # 408545) , filed by Kichul Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(PM, ) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 03/02/2004)
2 SEALED DOCUMENT 221 redacted version filed 6/24/2008FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT − CLASS ACTION against defendant John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge , filed by Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Nagham Almenar.(LT, ) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 05/10/2004)
3 PRAECIPE FOR FOUR SUMMONS (and issued) re 2 First Amended Complaint−Class Action by Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Nagham Almenar, Mohammed Al Amiri, Kichul Lee, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta. (LT, ) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
5 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint &Amended Complaint returned executed upon defendant Robert J Okin on 5/5/2004. (AF, ) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
6 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint &Amended Complaint returned executed upon Office of General Counsel on 5/5/2004. (AF, ) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
7 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint &Amended Complaint returned executed upon defendant John Ashcroft on 5/5/2004. (AF, ) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kristin Berger Johnson on behalf of Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
8 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint returned executed re Civil Process Clerk, US Atty on 5/5/04 (RS, ) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
9 MOTION to Certify Class by Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Nagham Almenar, Mohammed Al Amiri, Kichul Lee, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta. Noting Date 6/4/2004. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
10 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 7/6/2004; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (KERR, ) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Class Certification by Respondent John Ashcroft. Noting Date 6/10/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
12 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Nagham Almenar, Mohammed Al Amiri, Kichul Lee, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta re 11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
13 DECLARATION OF ROBERT H. GIBBS filed by Petitioners re 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Class Cerification (Attachments: SEALED EXHIBIT 222 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 # 1 Exhibit In Support of Motion)(Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/4/2004 to edit docket text(ECS, ). Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 06/03/2004)
14 REPLY, filed by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge, to Response to 11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Class Certification United States' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to United States' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Order Renoting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 10 of 28

06/09/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/16/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004
06/17/2004
06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/25/2004 06/29/2004 06/29/2004 07/01/2004

Certification)(Johnson, Kristin) Document filed in error, counsel will refile (KN, ). (Entered: 06/09/2004)
15 REPLY, filed by Respondents to Response to 11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Order Renoting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Johnson, Kristin) Modified on 6/10/2004 to edit docket text (ECS, ). (Entered: 06/09/2004)
16 RESPONSE Respondents' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class filed by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge re 9 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
17 ORDER RE−NOTING 9 MOTION to Certify Class; Noting Date 6/18/2004. by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
18 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization by Petitioner Sam Ta. Noting Date 7/8/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
19 REPLY, filed by Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Nagham Almenar, Mohammed Al Amiri, Kichul Lee, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, to Response to 9 MOTION to Certify Class (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
20 DECLARATION of Robert H. Gibbs filed by Petitioners re 9 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: SEALED EXHIBIT 223 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 # 1 Exhibit 1 FOIA documents# 2 Exhibit 2 Cheetham declaration and CV)(Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/21/2004 to edit docket text (ECS, ). Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 06/17/2004)
21 MOTION to Amend Class Action Complaint by Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Nagham Almenar, Mohammed Al Amiri, Kichul Lee, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta. Noting Date 6/28/2004. (Attachments: SEALED EXHIBIT 224 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint# 2 Proposed Order granting amendment)(Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 06/17/2004)
22 NOTICE by Petitioner Kichul Lee of supplemental authority relating to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Buono v. Norton)(Strawn, Christopher) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
23 Joint Stipulated MOTION to extend JSR and related deadlines by Petitioner Kichul Lee. Noting Date 6/22/2004. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
24 RESPONSE (AND NOTICE OF NO OPPOSITION), by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge, to Petitioner's 21 MOTION to Amend Class Action Complaint (Johnson, Kristin) Modified on 6/23/2004 (KN, ). (Entered: 06/23/2004)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 24 Response to Motion: per phone call from counsel, text modified to reflect "Notice of No Opposition" (KN, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
25 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 8/10/2004; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
26 REPLY, filed by Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Nagham Almenar, Mohammed Al Amiri, Kichul Lee, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, TO RESPONSE to 21 MOTION to Amend Class Action Complaint (Strawn, Christopher) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
27 ORDER granting 21 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge , filed by plaintiffs.(RS, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Petitioner Kichul Lee. Noting Date 7/16/2004. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 11 of 28

07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004

30 SEALED DOCUMENT 225 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Kichul Lee − Ex. 1 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
31 DECLARATION of Nagham Almemar − Ex. 2 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
32 SEALED DOCUMENT 226 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Counsel re Sam Ta − Ex. 3 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
33 DECLARATION of Ashwin Prasad − Ex. 4 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
34 SEALED DOCUMENT 227 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Counsel re Al Amiri − Ex. 5 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
35 SEALED DOCUMENT 228 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Al Tamimi − Ex. 6 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
36 SEALED DOCUMENT 229 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Counsel re Halima Al−Mamar − Ex. 7 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
37 SEALED DOCUMENT 230 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Counsel re Gun Lim − Ex. 8 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
38 SEALED DOCUMENT 231 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Counsel re Berhanu − Ex. 9 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
39 SEALED DOCUMENT 232 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Counsel re Hanspel − Ex. 10 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
40 SEALED DOCUMENT 233 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Burnazovic − Ex. 11 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
41 SEALED DOCUMENT 234 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Counsel re Al Mansur − Ex. 12 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
42 SEALED DOCUMENT 235 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Al Qureishi − Ex. 13 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
43 DECLARATION of Al Yim − Ex. 14 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
44 SEALED DOCUMENT 236 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Saepharn − Ex. 15 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 07/01/2004)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 12 of 28

07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/06/2004
07/06/2004 07/08/2004 07/08/2004
07/12/2004 07/12/2004 07/15/2004 07/15/2004 07/30/2004 08/09/2004 08/09/2004 08/27/2004 09/01/2004 09/08/2004

45 DECLARATION of Sabe − Ex. 16 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
46 DECLARATION of Daniel Smith − Ex. 17 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
47 DECLARATION of Kristen Kussmann − Ex. 18 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
48 DECLARATION of Janet Cheetham − Ex. 19 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
49 DECLARATION of Counsel re Guide to Naturalization − Ex. 20 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
50 DECLARATION of Counsel re CIS delay letter − Ex. 21 filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
51 RESPONSE, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge, to 18 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Form I−181# 2 Exhibit 2 − Form N−400# 3 Exhibit 3 − N−400 denial decision# 4 Exhibit 4 − Form N−336# 5 Exhibit 5 − N−336 approval decision# 6 Exhibit 6 − Form N−445# 7 Exhibit 7)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge re 51 Response to Motion, Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order of Judicial Naturalization. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
53 REPLY, filed by Petitioner Sam Ta, TO RESPONSE to 18 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
54 DECLARATION of Robert Gibbs filed by Petitioner Sam Ta re 18 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − N−336 appeal# 2 Exhibit 2 − Filing fee receipt# 3 Exhibit 3 − CIS letter)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
55 RESPONSE, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge, to 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge re 55 Response to Motion Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
57 REPLY, filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee, TO RESPONSE to 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
58 DECLARATION of Prasad (conformed) filed by Petitioner Ashwin Prasad re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Strawn, Christopher) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
59 Agreed Stipulated MOTION to Extend Time by Petitioner Kichul Lee. Noting Date 7/30/2004. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
60 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Patricia M Corrales−Talleda on behalf of Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge (Corrales−Talleda, Patricia) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
61 STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING SCHEDULE Joint Status Report due by 9/7/2004; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 08/10/2004)
62 MINUTE ORDER Status Conference set for 9/8/2004 at 01:30 PM before Hon Robert S. Lasnik. (KERR, ) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
63 Respondents' Answer to Petitioners' Second Amended Complaint ANSWER to Amended Complaint by John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin, Tom Ridge.(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
64 NOTICE of Filing Dept. of Homeland Security administrative files ("A−File") in paper form with the Clerk's Office by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin,

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 13 of 28

09/08/2004
09/10/2004 09/10/2004 09/16/2004
10/19/2004 10/21/2004 10/28/2004 11/23/2004 11/24/2004 12/02/2004 12/03/2004 12/03/2004 12/09/2004 12/09/2004 12/09/2004 12/13/2004

Tom Ridge (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
65 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik − Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; CR: Joe Roth; Time of Hearing: 1:30 p.m.; Courtroom #: 15106; Pla Counsel: Robert Gibbs, Robert Pauw and Christopher Stawn; Def Counsel: Kristin Johnson; Status Conference held on 9/8/2004. The Court and counsel discuss the posture of the case. The Court suggests mediation with Judge Martinez. The parties agree. Court is adjourned. (KERR, ) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
66 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 10/4/2004 09:00 AM before Hon. Ricardo Martinez by Judge Ricardo Martinez. (RS, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
67 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Order of Judicial Naturalization filed by pltf Sam Ta by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
The following alterations to the Electronic Filing Procedures apply in all cases pending before Judge Lasnik:− Section III, Paragraph F − when the aggregate submittal to the court (i.e., the motion, any declarations and exhibits, the proposed order, and the certificate of service) exceeds 50 pages in length, a paper copy of the documents (with tabs or other organizing aids as necessary) shall be delivered to the Clerk's Office for chambers. The chambers copy must be clearly marked with the words "Courtesy Copy of Electronic Filing for Chambers."− Section III, Paragraph K − unless the proposed order is stipulated, agreed, or otherwise uncontested, the parties need not e−mail a copy of the order to the judge's e−mail address. (KERR, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
69 NOTICE of Change of Address by Kristin Berger Johnson (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
70 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/8/04 Status Hearing before Judge Robert S Lasnik. Court Reporter: J. Roth. (SA, ) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
71 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo Martinez − Settlement Conference held on 10/28/2004. (LW) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
72 NOTICE by Petitioner Kichul Lee of termination of settlement negotiations and of supplemental authority in support of motion for class certification (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
73 ORDER denying 9 Motion to Certify Class by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 11/26/2004)
74 Second MOTION to Certify Class by Petitioner Kichul Lee. Noting Date 12/17/2004. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
75 WITHDRAWAL of Motion by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 29 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Kichul Lee, pending ruling on 2d motion for class certification (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
76 AMENDED ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 12/30/2004; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
77 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization and for Show Cause Order by Petitioner Kichul Lee. Noting Date 12/31/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
78 DECLARATION of Robert Gibbs re: Agency Procedures filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 77 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization and for Show Cause Order (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
79 SEALED DOCUMENT 237 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Robert Gibbs re: Documents filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 77 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization and for Show Cause Order (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/25/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 12/09/2004)
80 RESPONSE, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin, to 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs' Second Motion For Class Certification)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered:

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 14 of 28

12/13/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/27/2004
12/27/2004
12/27/2004 12/27/2004 12/28/2004 12/28/2004 12/29/2004 12/29/2004 12/30/2004 01/06/2005
01/10/2005 01/13/2005

12/13/2004)
81 DECLARATION of Julia Harrison filed by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
82 REPLY, filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee, TO RESPONSE to 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
83 DECLARATION of David Lambert filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
84 DECLARATION of Christopher Strawn filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
85 DECLARATION of Thomas Roach filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
86 DECLARATION of Jacqueline Wood filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
87 RESPONSE, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin, to 77 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization and for Show Cause Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Policy Memo No. 37# 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of Robert J. Okin)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
88 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 87 Response to Motion, Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order of Judicial Naturalization and Show Cause Order. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
89 PRAECIPE to attach document (Praecipe to Ex. 1 −− Policy Memo No. 24) re 87 Response to Motion, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
90 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 89 Praecipe to attach Document Praecipe to Ex. 1 − Policy Memo No. 24. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
91 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization by Plaintiff Kae Phou Saepharn. Noting Date 1/21/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed order)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
92 DECLARATION of Christopher Strawn filed by Plaintiff Kae Phou Saepharn re 91 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − N−445# 2 Exhibit 2 − CIS letter)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 91 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization: Incorrect image of proposed order attached to motion; counsel instructed to re−file proposed order. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
93 PRAECIPE to attach document (proposed order) re 91 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization by Plaintiff Kae Phou Saepharn. (Strawn, Christopher) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
94 REPLY, filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee, TO RESPONSE to 77 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization and for Show Cause Order (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
95 PRAECIPE re 77 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization and for Show Cause Order − Corrected Reply Brief − Plaintiffs having incorrectly referred to Plaintiff Yim as Plaintiff Lim, Plaintiffs' reply brief is accordingly corrected and refiled − by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
96 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 3 by Petitioners Kichul Lee, Kichul Lee.(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
97 ORDER granting in part 74 Second Motion to Certify Class by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 15 of 28

01/14/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 02/15/2005
02/16/2005
02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005

98 RESPONSE, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin, to 91 MOTION for Order of Judicial Naturalization. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
99 ORDER granting 77 Motion for order of naturalization; request to show cause is denied as moot by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
100 ORDER granting 91 Motion for order of naturalization by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
101 MINUTE ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; Length of Trial: 3 days. Bench Trial set for 4/3/2006 09:00 AM before Hon Robert S. Lasnik. Joinder of Parties due by 3/15/2005; Amended Pleadings due by 10/5/2005; Expert Witness Disclosure due by 10/5/2005; Discovery due by 12/4/2005; Dispositive motions due by 1/3/2006; Settlement conference to be held by 2/2/2006; 39.1 Settlement Report due by 3/4/2006; Motions in Limine due by 3/6/2006; Pretrial Order due by 3/22/2006; Trial briefs to be submitted by 3/29/2006; (KERR, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
119 SEALED DOCUMENT 238 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 MOTION to join class action filed by petitioner/intervenor Anthony Onochie. Not filed with noting date; Noting Date 3/4/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 SEALED EXHIBIT 239 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 Exhibit # 5 SEALED EXHIBIT 240 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 SEALED EXHIBIT 241 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 Exhibit # 9 SEALED EXHIBIT 241 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit)(RS, ) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/22/2005)
102 Second/Renewed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Petitioner Kichul Lee. Noting Date 3/11/2005. (Attachments: # 1proposed order)(Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 2/18/2005 to name attachment(RS, ). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
103 SEALED DOCUMENT 243 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Kichul Lee filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
104 SEALED DOCUMENT 244 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Gibbs re Sam Ta docs filed by Petitioner Sam Ta re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
105 DECLARATION of Ashwan Prasad filed by Petitioner Ashwin Prasad re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
106 SEALED DOCUMENT 245 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Gun Lim filed by Plaintiff Gun Lim re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
107 SEALED DOCUMENT 246 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Gibbs re Berhanu docs filed by Plaintiff Ahmed Berhanu re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
108 SEALED DOCUMENT 247 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Gibbs re Hanspal docs filed by Plaintiff Hans Hanspal re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
109 SEALED DOCUMENT 248 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Admir Burnazovic filed by Plaintiff Admir Burnazovic re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
110 SEALED DOCUMENT 249 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Saepharn filed by Plaintiff Kae Phou Saepharn re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered:

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 16 of 28

02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005
02/23/2005 03/03/2005 03/07/2005 03/07/2005 03/07/2005 03/09/2005 03/14/2005 03/14/2005 03/14/2005 04/08/2005
04/11/2005

02/17/2005)
111 DECLARATION of Daniel Smith filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
112 DECLARATION of Kristen Kussman filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
113 DECLARATION of Janet Cheetham filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
114 DECLARATION of Gibbs re N−14's filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
115 DECLARATION of David Lambert filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
116 DECLARATION of Thomas Roach filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
117 DECLARATION of Gibbs re Guide filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
118 SEALED DOCUMENT 250 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 DECLARATION of Gibbs re Al−Amiri docs filed by Petitioner Mohammed Al Amiri re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
120 RESPONSE, by Petitioner Kichul Lee, to 119 MOTION to Intervene. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
121 RESPONSE, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin, to 119 MOTION to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
122 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER re Naturalization of Ashwin Prasad by parties. (Attachments: # 1proposed order)(Pauw, Robert) Modified on 3/8/2005 to name attachment(RS, ). (Entered: 03/07/2005)
123 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Stipulation and Agreed Order Resetting Schedule by parties re 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
124 ORDER re plaintiff Ashwin Prasad ordering US Citizenship and Immigration Services to schedule an oath ceremony by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
125 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Robert T Seder for Respondent John Ashcroft. (Seder, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
126 STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING SCHEDULE; removing 102 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Kichul Lee, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
127 MOTION for Extension/permission to change venue by Intervenor Anthony Onochie. (RS, ) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
128 RESPONSE by Intervenor Anthony Onochie to plaintiffs' answer/respondent's motion to join the class action suit. (RS, ) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
129 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE re 127 MOTION for Extension of Time/Motion for permission to Change Venue filed by Anthony Onochie. Mr. Onochie's motion to intervene is, therefore, DENIED by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MD ) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
130 REQUEST by Intervenor Anthony Onochie for copy; clerk sent copy. Receipt no 852008. (RS, ) (Entered: 04/13/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 17 of 28

04/11/2005
04/18/2005 06/22/2005
07/26/2005 07/26/2005 07/27/2005 07/27/2005 08/03/2005 08/03/2005 08/05/2005 08/08/2005 08/10/2005 08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/29/2005 08/29/2005 09/16/2005 09/19/2005 10/13/2005

131 SEALED DOCUMENT 251 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Intervenor Anthony Onochie. (Attachments: # 1 SEALED EXHIBIT 252 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 Exhibit)(RS, ) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 04/13/2005)
132 ORDER striking 131 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Anthony Onochie by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
Set Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 8/10/2005 09:30 AM before Hon. Ricardo Martinez. Counsel are directed to provide the Court with an informal letter brief no later than 8/8/05, regarding the status of settlement talks to date. Please DO NOT FILE with the Court; submit directly to Judge Martinez. (LC, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
133 Stipulated MOTION of judicial naturalization by Plaintiffs Hans Hanspal, Gun Lim. Noting Date 7/26/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order granting naturalization)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
134 Stipulated MOTION of judicial naturalization by Plaintiff Ahmed Berhanu. Noting Date 7/26/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order of judicial naturalization)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
135 ORDER granting 133 Stipulated MOTION of judicial naturalization filed by Gun Lim, Hans Hanspal by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
136 ORDER granting 134 Stipulated MOTION of judicial naturalization filed by Ahmed Berhanu by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
137 Stipulated MOTION for Judicial Naturalization by Plaintiff Yassin Al Qureishi. Noting Date 8/3/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order of judicial naturalization)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
138 ORDER granting 137 Stipulated MOTION for Judicial Naturalization filed by Yassin Al Qureishi, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
139 Stipulated MOTION for judicial naturalization by Plaintiff Admir Burnazovic. Noting Date 8/5/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order of judicial naturalization)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
140 ORDER granting 139 Stipulated MOTION for judicial naturalization filed by Admir Burnazovic, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
141 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez − Settlement Conference held on 8/10/2005. (LW) Modified on 8/12/2005 to correct date (LW). (Entered: 08/12/2005)
142 Stipulated MOTION for order of naturalization by Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Nagham Almenar. Noting Date 8/24/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
143 Stipulated MOTION for judicial naturalization by Plaintiff Endeshaw Sabe. Noting Date 8/24/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
144 ORDER re 143 Stipulated MOTION for judicial naturalization filed by Endeshaw Sabe, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MD ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
145 ORDER re 142 Stipulated MOTION for order of naturalization filed by Nagham Almenar, Halima Al−Mamar, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MD ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
Set Deadlines &Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 10/11/2005 at 9:30 AM before Hon. Ricardo S Martinez. Status Memorandum due by 10/6/2005. Letter to follow.(LW) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
146 Letter from Judge Ricardo S. Martinez re settlement conference. (LC, ) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
148 ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Counsel having notified the Court of settlement of this case, and it appearing that no issue remains for the Court's determination, IT IS

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 18 of 28

10/18/2005 11/02/2005
11/03/2005 11/08/2005
11/17/2005
11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 12/06/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005 12/12/2005 12/19/2005 12/19/2005

ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED without prejudice and without costs to any party. In the event that settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
149 ORDER VACATING ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
150 MOTION Fairness Hearing to approve proposed settlement of class action by Petitioner Halima Al−Mamar. Noting Date 11/2/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Final settlement# 2 Exhibit General Notice to class# 3 Exhibit Individual notice to class member# 4 Exhibit Exh C, Reporting Format on compliance# 5 Exhibit Proposed Protection Order w/stip# 6 Supplement EAJA settlement agreement# 7 Exhibit Fairness Hearing, Notice to Class# 8 Proposed Order Fairness Hearing Order)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
151 PRAECIPE re 150 MOTION Fairness Hearing to approve proposed settlement of class action Substitute corrected General Notice A by Petitioner Halima Al−Mamar. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
IMPORTANT NOTICE regarding courtesy copies for Judge Lasnik's chambers; when the aggregate submittal to the court (i.e., the motion, any declarations and exhibits, the proposed order, and the certificate of service) exceeds 50 pages in length, a paper copy of the documents (with tabs or other organizing aids as necessary) shall be delivered to the Clerk's Office for chambers BY 10:30 A.M. THE MORNING AFTER FILING. The chambers copy must be clearly marked with the words "Courtesy Copy of Electronic Filing for Chambers." (KERR, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
152 MOTION to Amend 150 MOTION Fairness Hearing to approve proposed settlement of class action First Amended Joint Motion For Order For Notice And Fairness Hearing Pursuant To Rule 23(E) by Respondent Tom Ridge. Noting Date 11/17/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, Final Kichul Lee Settlement# 2 Attachment A, Notice B# 3 Attachment A, Spread sheet# 4 Attachment A, Stipulation and Order of Protection Regarding Privacy Act Information# 5 Attachment A, Stipulation For Compromise Settlement and Release of Claims# 6 Attachment B, NATZ Fairness Hearing Notice# 7 First Amended Proposed Order For Notice and Fairness Hearing Pursuant To Rule 23(E))(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
153 ORDER FOR NOTICE AND FAIRNESS HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 23(E) by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(LT, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
154 FIRST AMENDED ORDER FOR NOTICE AND FAIRNESS HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 23(E) by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LT, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
155 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF PROTECTION REGARDING PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LT, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
156 APPLICATION Claim re class settlement by Long Nhu Pham. (LT, ) Modified text on 12/12/2005 (LT, ). (Entered: 12/07/2005)
157 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by Khounsavath Thatsana. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
158 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by petitioner Seth Dom. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
159 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by Harjit Singh. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
160 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by petitioner Jack Doan. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
161 Letter from Jorge Zuniga re application for citizenship. (RS, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 19 of 28

12/27/2005
12/27/2005 12/28/2005
12/29/2005 12/29/2005 12/30/2005 01/04/2006 01/04/2006 01/04/2006 01/05/2006
01/05/2006 01/06/2006 01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/09/2006
01/09/2006 01/10/2006 01/11/2006 01/13/2006 01/17/2006 01/20/2006

162 Copy of Letter from INS addressed to Veniamin Ivanovich Melnik re denial of application for naturalization, filed by Veniamin Ivanovich Melnik. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
163 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Taama N. Al−Musawi. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
164 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 155 Stipulation and Order, 153 Order on Motion to Amend, 154 Order addressed to Anthony Onochie (LT, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
165 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by petitioner Juan Mejia Rodriguez. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
166 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Gabriel Madrid Velasquez. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
167 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by petitioner Jose Natividad Frias Diaz. (LT, ) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
168 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by petitioner Jose Trinidad Cervantes−Torres. (LT, ) Modified text on 1/5/2006 (LT, ). (Entered: 01/05/2006)
169 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by petitioner Rima Gasparyan. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
170 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by petitioner Ha Thi Cam Tran. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
171 SEALED DOCUMENT 253 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 APPLICATION Claim filed by petitioner Francisco Gonzalez Gonzalez. (LT, ) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 01/05/2006)
172 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Vikramdeep Singh. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
173 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Rasaki Yusuff. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
175 NOTICE of Corrected Image/Document re 174 Application. (Service of redacted image is attached). (LT, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
176 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Martha I. Gallo−Padilla. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
177 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Hagos H Gebremariam. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
178 SEALED DOCUMENT by Petitioner Hagos H Gebremariam re attachment to 177 Application. Document states that it is a Confidential Document; filed under seal by clerk. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
179 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Khanh Duc Nguyen. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
180 APPLICATION Claim re settlement by petitioner Nedko Ivanov Mochev. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
182 SEALED DOCUMENT 254 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 Letter from pltf re his INS application. (CL, ) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 01/17/2006)
181 REPORT re 154 Order on Fairness Hearing by Petitioner Halima Al−Mamar. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
183 REPORT Defendants' Report On Objections by Respondent John Ashcroft. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
184 ORDER SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 23(e) by Judge Robert S. Lasnik: Hearing set for 2/16/2006 at 11:00 AM before Hon Robert S. Lasnik. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/20/2006)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 20 of 28

01/20/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006
01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/30/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 02/06/2006
02/16/2006
02/16/2006 03/02/2006 03/17/2006 03/22/2006 08/17/2007
09/10/2007 09/10/2007

185 SEALED DOCUMENT 255 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Nancy Mai. (LT, ) Modified on 1/23/2006 (LT, ). Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 01/23/2006)
186 Agreed MOTION Naturalization by Plaintiff Raad Al Mansur, Petitioner Abdul Al−Tamimi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order of Naturalization)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
187 MOTION Joint Motion To Approve Settlement by Respondent Robert J Okin. Noting Date 1/27/2006. (Attachments: # 1 (Proposed) Order Approving Settlement Agreement And Issuing Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
188 DECLARATION of Michael P. Conricode filed by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin re 187 MOTION Joint Motion To Approve Settlement (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
189 DECLARATION of Robert H. Gibbs filed by Respondents John Ashcroft, Robert J Okin re 187 MOTION Joint Motion To Approve Settlement (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
190 ORDER re 186 Agreed MOTION Naturalization re Plaintiffs Abdul Al−Tamimi and Raad Al Mansur, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LT, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
191 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 188 Declaration, 187 MOTION Joint Motion To Approve Settlement, 189 Declaration. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
192 SEALED DOCUMENT 256 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Thanh Liem Nguyen. (LT, ) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/01/2006)
193 SEALED DOCUMENT 257 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by petitioner Eth Lothchomphou. (Original filing, Application for Naturalization, forwarded to defense counsel) (LT, ) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 02/08/2006)
194 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik − Dep Clerk: Kerry Lane; Pla Counsel: Robert Gibbs, Robert Pauw and Chris Strawn; Def Counsel: Kirstin Johnson and Michael Conricode; CR: Laurene Kelly; Time of Hearing: 11:00 a.m.; Session #: 15106;Motion Hearing held on 2/16/2006 re 187 Joint Motion To Approve Settlement. After hearing from counsel, the Court approves the final settlement. The final judgment and order shall be signed by the Court later today. (KERR, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
195 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LT, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
196 APPLICATION Claim re settlement filed by Santos Raymundo Madera−Quiroz. (LT, ) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
197 NOTICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 195 Judgment Notice A (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
198 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 197 Notice−Other. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
199 MOTION for Contempt by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Attachments: # 1 SEALED EXHIBIT 258 redacted version filed 6/24/2008 Exhibit Exh 1−4 to Motion# 2 Proposed Order)Noting Date 9/14/2007.(Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 6/26/2008 (ELS). (Entered: 08/17/2007)
200 RESPONSE, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin, to 199 MOTION for Contempt. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
201 DECLARATION of Julia L. Harrison filed by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 199 MOTION for Contempt (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered:

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 21 of 28

09/13/2007 10/18/2007 11/15/2007 01/02/2008 01/08/2008 01/10/2008 01/11/2008 01/15/2008 04/03/2008
04/14/2008 04/14/2008 04/15/2008 04/17/2008
04/18/2008
05/19/2008
06/17/2008
06/17/2008

09/10/2007)
202 NOTICE that the following is RE−NOTED: 199 MOTION for Contempt. Filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee. Noting Date 10/19/2007.(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
203 NOTICE of Renoting Motion RE: 199 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ; filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) RE−NOTED TO 11/16/07 Modified on 10/19/2007 (VB, ). (Entered: 10/18/2007)
204 REPLY, filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee, TO RESPONSE to 199 MOTION for Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Pauw# 2 Exhibit Seattle CIS Processing Times)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
205 ORDER regarding plaintiffs' 199 Motion to enforce compliance by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
206 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 205 Order on Motion for Contempt addressed to Rima Gasparyan (RS, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
207 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 205 Order on Motion for Contempt addressed to Jack Doan (RS, ) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
208 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 205 Order on Motion for Contempt addressed to Khanh Duc Nguyen (RS, ) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
209 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 205 Order on Motion for Contempt addressed to Taama Naama Al−Musawi (RS, ) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
210 Second MOTION for Contempt by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CIS Report# 2 Exhibit Exh 2, Dec of RHGibbs# 3 Exhibit Exh. 3: CIS memo re interviews and name checks# 4 Exhibit Exh. 4 Seattl processing times# 5 Errata Exh 5., CIS memo on expedites# 6 Exhibit Exh 6. CIS memo on name checks after 180 days# 7 Proposed Order Proposed order)Noting Date 4/18/2008.(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
211 RESPONSE, by Respondent John Ashcroft, to 210 Second MOTION for Contempt. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
212 DECLARATION of Susan Walk filed by Respondent John Ashcroft re 210 Second MOTION for Contempt (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
213 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 212 Declaration, 211 Response to Motion. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
214 REPLY, filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee, TO RESPONSE to 210 Second MOTION for Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Pauw# 2 Exhibit Declaration of Peters# 3 Exhibit Declaration of Gibbs# 4 Exhibit Declaration of Matsumoto# 5 Exhibit Declaration of Klein)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
215 MOTION for Order to Supplement Opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Enforce Compliance by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Proposed Order)Noting Date 4/29/2008.(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
216 ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' 210 Second Motion to enforce compliance; granting dfts' 215 Motion to supplement their opposition by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS, ) Modified on 5/19/2008 cc petitioners (RS, ). (Entered: 05/19/2008)
217 STATUS REPORT Regarding Order Regarding Second Motion to Enforce Compliance by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Johnson, Kristin) Modified per 7/22/08 minute order to change report to a motion on 7/23/2008 (RS). (Entered: 06/17/2008)
218 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 217 Status Report. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 22 of 28

06/20/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008
06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008

219 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 216 Order on Motion for Contempt, Order on Motion for Order addressed to Ha Thi Cam Tran (MD) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
220 REDACTION to 1 Complaint by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
221 REDACTION to 2 Amended Complaint by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
222 REDACTION to 13 Declaration, Attachment # 1 Exhibit In Support of Motion by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
223 REDACTION to 20 Declaration Attachment # 1 Exhibit 1 FOIA documents by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
224 REDACTION to 21 MOTION to Amend Class Action Complaint Attachment # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
225 REDACTION to 30 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
226 REDACTION to 32 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
227 REDACTION to 34 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
228 REDACTION to 35 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
229 REDACTION to 36 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
230 REDACTION to 37 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
231 REDACTION to 38 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
232 REDACTION to 39 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
233 REDACTION to 40 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
234 REDACTION to 41 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
235 REDACTION to 42 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
236 REDACTION to 44 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
237 REDACTION to 79 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
238 REDACTION to 119 MOTION to Intervene by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
239 REDACTION to 119 MOTION to Intervene # 4 Exhibit by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
240 REDACTION to 119 MOTION to Intervene # 5 Exhibit by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
241 REDACTION to 119 MOTION to Intervene # 8 Exhibit by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 23 of 28

06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008 07/21/2008
07/22/2008 07/22/2008 07/23/2008 07/28/2008

242 REDACTION to 119 MOTION to Intervene # 9 Exhibit by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
243 REDACTION to 103 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
244 REDACTION to 104 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
245 REDACTION to 106 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
246 REDACTION to 107 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
247 REDACTION to 108 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
248 REDACTION to 109 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
249 REDACTION to 110 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
250 REDACTION to 118 Declaration by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
251 REDACTION to 131 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
252 REDACTION to 131 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Attachment # 1 Exhibit by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
253 REDACTION to 171 Application by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
254 REDACTION to 182 Letter by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
255 REDACTION to 185 Application by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
256 REDACTION to 192 Application by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
257 REDACTION to 193 Application by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
258 REDACTION to 199 MOTION for Contempt Attachment # 1 Exhibit Exh 1−4 to Motion by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
259 STATUS REPORT Re Order on Second Motion to Enforce Compliance by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Johnson, Kristin) Modified per 7/23/08 minute order changing document to a motion on 7/23/2008 (RS). (Entered: 07/21/2008)
260 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 259 Status Report. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
261 MINUTE ORDER RE−NOTING dfts' 217 Status Report for 7/31/2008 by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
262 MINUTE ORDER RE−NOTING 259 Second Status Report for 7/31/2008 by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
263 Exhibit 3 sealed, E−Govt Act; personal identifiers, see redaction 265 : RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Gun Lim, to 259 MOTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Gibbs, # 2 Exhibit GHP Spreadsheet re processing times, Exh 1, # 3 SEALED, Exhibit CIS classmember spreadsheet, Exh. 2, # 4 Exhibit DOJ OIG report, Exh. 3, # 5 Exhibit Seattle online processing report, Exh. 4)(Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 7/30/2008 (KN). (Entered: 07/28/2008)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 24 of 28

07/28/2008
07/29/2008 07/29/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 08/01/2008 08/11/2008 08/25/2008 09/05/2008 09/08/2008 09/08/2008 09/11/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 01/14/2009

264 Supplemental DECLARATION of Robert Gibbs RESPONSE, by Petitioner Kichul Lee, to 259 MOTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mekkhavong MTR letter, # 2 Exhibit Mekkhavong priority mail receipt, # 3 Exhibit Watson proof of mailing)(Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 7/29/2008 (HBR). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 264 Response to Motion: Correctly identified filed document. (HBR) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
265 REDACTION to 263 Response to Motion, Exh 3 CIS spreadsheet by Plaintiff Gun Lim. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
266 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Gun Lim, to 217 MOTION, 259 MOTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Additional N400 notices w/spreadsheet)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
267 REPLY, filed by Respondent John Ashcroft, TO RESPONSE to 259 MOTION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
268 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 267 Reply to Response to Motion. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
269 AFFIDAVIT of RH Gibbs filed by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 266 Response to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Update on Processing Times, 08112008)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
270 THIRD ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
271 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 270 Third Order addressed to Eth Lothchomphou (RS) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
272 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 270 Order addressed to Taama Naama−Al−Musawi (RS) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
273 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 270 Order addressed to Khanh Duc Nguyen (RS) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
274 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 270 Order addressed to Ha Thi Cam Tran (RS) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
275 STATUS REPORT on Third Order Regarding Enforcement of Settlement by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
276 DECLARATION of Susan Walk re 275 Status Report Re Third Order Regarding Enforcement of Settlement by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
277 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 275 Status Report, 276 Declaration (non motion). (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
278 STATUS REPORT Second Status Report on Third Order Regarding Enforcement of Settlement by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
279 DECLARATION re 278 Status Report Declaration of Susan Walk Re Third Order Regarding Enforcement of Settlement by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
280 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 278 Status Report, 279 Declaration (non motion). (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
281 STATUS REPORT Third Status Report on Third Order Regarding Enforcement of Settlement by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 25 of 28

01/14/2009 01/15/2009 03/12/2009 03/12/2009 03/12/2009 03/26/2009
04/02/2009
04/02/2009
04/02/2009
04/02/2009
04/02/2009
04/02/2009

282 DECLARATION of SUSAN WALK re 281 Status Report by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
283 Letter from Anatoliy D. Orshak re taking Oath of Allegiance. (RS) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
284 STATUS REPORT on Third Order Regarding Enforcement of Settlement by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
285 DECLARATION of Sheila Lee re 284 Status Report by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
286 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 285 Declaration (non motion), 284 Status Report. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
287 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Devin T Theriot−Orr on behalf of Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar. (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar. Noting Date 4/17/2009, (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
289 DECLARATION of Devin Theriot−Orr filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
290 DECLARATION of Matthew Watson filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (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)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
291 DECLARATION of Mahmoud Safarpour filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
292 DECLARATION of Albert Buca filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
293 Redacted DECLARATION of J. D−S filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/02/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 26 of 28

04/02/2009
04/03/2009
04/09/2009
04/10/2009
04/10/2009 04/16/2009 04/17/2009
04/17/2009 04/20/2009 04/20/2009 04/23/2009 04/27/2009 04/27/2009 04/28/2009

294 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement, 290 Declaration,, 291 Declaration, 292 Declaration, 293 Declaration, 289 Declaration,,. (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
295 DECLARATION of Devin Theriot−Orr Regarding Signature Page on Dkt. #293 filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
296 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to show cause within five days of this Order why they should not be sanctioned for their failure to comply with this Court's docket entry of September 16, 2004, and the Minute Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement (Dkt. # 101), by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (cc: all Pro Se parties)(VP) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
297 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
298 ORDER vacating Order to show cause by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
300 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 296 Order to Show Cause, addressed to Ha Thi Cam Tran (RS) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
299 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar, TO RESPONSE to 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
301 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 296 Order to Show Cause, addressed to Jack Doan (Attachments: # 1 return mail returned as to Khan Duc Nguyen)(RS) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
302 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Continuing Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement by parties. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
303 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 296 Order to Show Cause, addressed to Taama Al−Musawi (Attachments: # 1 return mail addressed to Eth Lothchomphou)(RS) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
304 STIPULATION AND ORDER Continuing Pltf's 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Motion continued to 5/1/09, Dft's response due 4/27/09, Pltf's reply due 5/1/09, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (cc: all Pro−Se parties) (VP) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
305 RESPONSE, by Respondent John Ashcroft, to 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
306 DECLARATION of Sheila Lee filed by Respondent John Ashcroft re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
307 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 305 Response to Motion, 306 Declaration. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 27 of 28

04/30/2009 05/01/2009
05/01/2009
05/01/2009
05/04/2009 05/04/2009 05/05/2009 05/11/2009 05/14/2009 05/14/2009 05/19/2009
05/19/2009
05/19/2009
05/20/2009

308 RESPONSE, by Respondent John Ashcroft, to 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
309 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar, TO RESPONSE to 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
310 DECLARATION of Devin Theriot−Orr filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
311 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 309 Reply to Response to Motion, 310 Declaration,. (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
312 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 304 Stipulation and Order addressed to Be Thi Ho (VP) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
313 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 304 Stipulation and Order addressed to Khanh Duc Nguyen (VP) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
314 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 304 Stipulation and Order, addressed to Ha Thi Cam Tran and Jack Doan (RS) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
315 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 304 Stipulation and Order, addressed to Faama Naama Al−Musawi and Anthony Gnochie (RS) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
316 Fifth STATUS REPORT ON THIRD ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
317 DECLARATION of SHEILA LEE re 316 Status Report by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
318 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 316 Status Report, 317 Declaration (non motion). (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
319 DECLARATION of R. Wayne McMillan filed by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 288 Fourth MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Endeshaw Sabe, Kae Phou Saepharn, Al Yim, Yassin Al Qureishi, Raad Al Mansur, Admir Burnazovic, Hans Hanspal, Ahmed Berhanu, Gun Lim, Petitioners Halima Al−Mamar, Abdul Al−Tamimi, Mohammed Al Amiri, Ashwin Prasad, Sam Ta, Kichul Lee, Nagham Almenar re 319 Declaration, 318 Response (non motion), Response (non motion). (Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
321 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 304 Stipulation and Order, addressed to Rima Gasparyan (RS) (Entered: 05/21/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-00449-RSL As of: 07/02/2012 11:53 AM PDT 28 of 28

05/22/2009 05/22/2009 05/22/2009 06/08/2009 06/15/2009 07/01/2009
07/07/2009 07/29/2009
07/29/2009
07/29/2009 08/10/2009 08/10/2009 08/14/2009
09/24/2009 05/24/2010

322 Sixth STATUS REPORT on Third Order Regarding Enforcement of Settlement by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
323 DECLARATION of Susan Walk re 322 Status Report by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
324 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 323 Declaration (non motion), 322 Status Report. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
325 FOURTH ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. cc pro se parties (RS) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
326 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 325 Order addressed to Taama Naama Al−Musawi, Jack Doan, Ha Thi Cam Tran, Khanh Duc Nguyen, Rima Gasparyan, Eth Lothchomphou (RS) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
327 STATUS REPORT on Fourth Order Regarding Enforcement of Settlement by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Susan Walk re fourth order re enforcement of settlement)(Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
328 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 325 Order addressed to Be Thi Ho (RS) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
329 PROPOSED ORDER RE MOTION for Attorney Fees by Petitioner Kichul Lee. MOTION FILED AS 330 PRAECIPE TO ATTACH DOCUMENT. Noting Date 8/14/2009, (Gibbs, Robert) Modified on 7/29/2009 (ELS). (Entered: 07/29/2009)
330 PRAECIPE to attach document Motion for Attorneys Fees re 329 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Attorney Gibbs, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Attorney Pauw, # 3 Exhibit Resume of Attorney Pauw, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Attorney Theriot−Orr, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Attorney Matsumoto, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Attorney Soreff, # 7 Exhibit Attorneys' Time Log, # 8 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
331 AMENDMENT to Motion for Attorneys Fees to 330 Praecipe to Attach Document, 329 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Petitioner Kichul Lee. (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
332 RESPONSE, by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin, to 329 MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
333 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Respondents John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Robert J Okin re 332 Response to Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (Johnson, Kristin) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
334 RESPONSE by Petitioner Kichul Lee re 330 Praecipe to Attach Document, Reply in support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supp. Decl. of Robert Gibbs, # 2 Exhibit Supp. Time Log, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Theriot−Orr, Devin) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
335 ORDER granting in part 329 Motion for Attorney Fees ; plaintiffs entitled to award of $58,897.50 by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
336 Destruction of INS Court Record pursuant to Authorization (MD) (Entered: 05/24/2010)