1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

2

McALLEN DIVISION

3 ELIAS PANTOJA-CASTILLO,

§

BENEDICTOR DIAZ-RESENDEZ, AND §

4 CARLOS ALBERTO ROMERO-

§

SALAZAR,

§

5

§

§

6

Plaintiffs,

§

§

7

v.

§

§

8

§

§

9

§

§

10 DORA J. SANCHEZ, FIELD OFFICER IN §

CHARGE, U.S.C.I.S., HARLINGEN,

§

11 TEXAS, MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

§

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

§

12 HOMELAND SECURITY, AND THE

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

§

13

§

§

14

Defendants.

§

Civil Action No. M-07-204 Judge Randy Crane

15

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

16

Preamble

17

WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement (the "agreement") is made and entered into by all

18

Plaintiffs and Defendants in the action captioned as Pantoja et al v. Sanchez et al, M-07-204

19

(collectively herein, the "Parties"), as of August 29, 2008. The agreement resolves all claims raised

20

by the Plaintiffs in this action;

21

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in the United States District Court

22

for the Southern District of Texas;

23

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs alleged that they are all Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) of the

24

United States who filed this action to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

25

(USCIS) to issue Plaintiffs appropriate evidence of their status as lawful permanent residents and to

26

users compel

to take certain other actions to remedy procedural delays and technical requirements

27

Pantoja Agreement
28 9:07cvl50

1 for LPRs seeking extension of the document evidencing their status;

2

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs alleged that the stickers that USCISaffixed to expired LPR cards to

3 extend expiration dates were not valid long enough to process I-90s, as set forth in their published

4 schedules;

5

WHEREAS, Defendants deny the allegations in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint;

6

WHEREAS, the Parties believe it is in their mutual interest to settle the litigation to avoid the

7 risks and burdens of trial inthis matter, and accordingly enter into this Pantoja agreement to resolve

8 all claims brought forth in the instant action.

9

NOW, THEREFORE, in full settlement of the pending litigation and undertakings set forth

10 herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and

11 between the undersigned, as follows:

12 I.

Parties

13

1. Plaintiffs are the three Plaintiffs named in the Second Amended Complaint: Jesus

14 Rodriguez-Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez-Mora, and Reynaldo Ozuna-Villareal.

15

2. Defendants are Dora Sanchez, Field Officer in Charge, USCIS, Harlingen TX;

16 Michael Chertoff, Secretary ofU.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and the United States

17 of America.

18 II.

Terms of Agreement

19

3. The effective date of this agreement is the final date on which the Parties'

20 representatives sign below.

21

4. Plaintiffs agree to dismiss their Second Amended Complaint as to the named

22 plaintiffs within 10 days of the effective date of this agreement.

23

5. Plaintiffs agree to withdraw their motion for class certification within 10 days of the

24 effective date of this agreement.

25

6. Plaintiffs agree to withdraw their pending opposed motion on behalf of Julian

26 Alvarado-Chavez, an unnamed member of the putative class herein, to intervene as a named

27 plaintiff. The motion will be withdrawn within 10 days ofthe effective date ofthis agreement.

28

Pantoja Agreement

9:07cvl50

2

1

7. Defendants agree to pay $7,500 in attorney fees as part of the comprehensive

2 settlement within 60 days of the effective date of this agreement. The payment of $7,500 will be

3 made to Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc., and will fully satisfy all claims for attorney fees and costs in

4 this action. Plaintiffs will not seek additional fees or costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act or

5 any other provision of law.

6

8. Tlie Parties agree with respect to the named Plaintiffs and interveners that Defendants

7 have satisfied all issues alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, and are making good faith

8 efforts to resolve said issues with respect to members of the putative class.

9

9. This agreement applies to and is binding upon all Plaintiffs and Defendants, including

10 Defendants' officers, agents, employees, successors and assigns.

11

III. Dispute Resolution During Life of Agreement and Termination

12

10. To the extent one Party contends that the other is not abiding by the terms of the

13 agreement during the two (2) years this agreement is in effect, or if Plaintiffs come forward during

14 the two-year period with evidence of ongoing practices challenged in the Second Amended

15 Complaint, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to resolve any existing disputes.

16

11. The Parties further agree that, prior to bringing any enforcement action, and only after

17 good faith negotiations between the Parties' counsel fail, the Parties will attempt to resolve any

18 disputes with the assistance of a United States Magistrate Judge in the District Court for the

19 Southern District of Texas.

20

12. The Parties agree that, for the life of the agreement, the United State District Court for

21 the Southern District of Texas has jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this agreement. However,

22 the Parties agree that Plaintiffs will bring no enforcement action without first obtaining a

23 certification from a United States Magistrate Judge that good faith negotiations between the Parties

24 have occurred and that disputes between the Parties are irreconcilable without Court intervention. If

25 parties are unable to reach an agreement after good faith negotiations and after a certificate has been

26 obtained from a United States Magistrate Judge, the parties agree that the matter should be brought

27 before Judge Randy Crane, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas.

28

13. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties as to the claims

Pantoja Agreement

9:07cvl50

3

1 raised by Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint.

2

14. This is an integrated agreement and may not be altered or modified except by a

3 writing signed by all Parties in interest at the time of the authorization and modification.

4

15. This agreement and all responsibility and obligations set forth herein shall terminate

5 two (2) years from the effective date of this agreement at which time the Parties shall move that the

6 case be dismissed with prejudice.

7 III.

No Admission of Liability

8

16. The Parties understand and expressly agree that the terms of this agreement and the

9 settlement provided for herein, are intended to compromise disputed claims, to avoid litigation, and

10 to buy peace, and that this agreement and the settlement provided for herein do not constitute ~nd

11 shall not be construed or viewed as an admission of any wrongdoing or liability by any Party.

12 IV.

Representations

13

17. The Parties to this agreement represent and warrant unto each other that:

14

A. Each of them has legal capacity, and authority to compromise and release all

15

claims as provided herein;

16

R Each of them has the legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform all

17

the terms of this agreement; and

18

C. Each of them has read this agreement, understands its terms, and intends to be

19
20 v.

legally bound by it. Sufficiency of Consideration

21

18. The Parties acknowledge that the covenants contained in this agreement pro_yide good

22 and sufficient consideration for every promise, duty, release, obligation, agreement, and right ·

23 contained in this agreement.

24 VI.

Advice of Counsel

25

19. Each Party to this agreement acknowledges that it has had the benefit of advice of

26 competent legal counsel with respect to the decision to enter into this agreement and the settlement

27 provided for herein.

28

Pantoja Agreement

9:07cvl50

4

1 VII.

Mutual Exelusivity Q{Provisions

2

20. If any provision of this agreement is declared invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any

3 respect, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect, unaffected and unimpaired.

4 VIII. Defense of Agreement

5

21. The Parties agree to defend the provisions of this agreement. The Parties shall notify

6 each other of any court challenge to this agreement.

7 IX.

Successors

8

22. This agreemer.t shaH be binding on all successors, assignees, employees, and all those

9 working for or on behalf of Defendants and Plaintiffs.

10 X.

Titm 1\Dd Headinp

11

23. Tides. and beadings to Articles and Sections herein are inserted for convenience and

12 reference only, and are nat intended to be part of or to affect the meaning or interpretation ofthls

13 agreement

14 For PLAINTIFFS

r6«fr1f#- J,n/o f). 15
16

By:

I 71

\

f/!Eeli_sa;b:uethlieLi/s;afJS~;{yso&g,a

~

E: \~ \J

f5
--"'';,F'-,"-ji-""D--

Attorney At Law

17

Refugio del Rio Grande.. Inc

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/02/07 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
McALLEN DIVISION

ELIAS PANTOJA-CASTILLO,

)

)

v.

)

)

DORA J. SANCHEZ, FIELD OFFICER IN CHARGE,

)

U.S.C.I.S., HARLINGEN, TEXAS,

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY,

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

)

)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Elias Pantoja-Castillo, through the undersigned, files the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (28 U.S.C. §2241); Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (28 U.S.C. §1361), and Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 (federal question), and 1346(a)(2) (actions against Officers of the United States), together with 28 U.S.C. §2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act).

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Petitioner Elias Pantoja, (“Mr. Pantoja”), seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Mandamus, and Declaratory and Injunctive relief, mandating that Respondents immediately provide him with proof of his lawful permanent resident status, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1304(d). Petitioner’s current card expired in 2006. He filed an I-90 for a new card on November 27, 2006, and was ordered to report to have his prints taken on February 14, 2007. He appeared as required. At that time, his expired card was extended through May, 2007. Petitioner’s Exhibit “A” incorporated herein.

2. In or about June, 2007, after the extension had expired, Mr. Pantoja went to the Harlingen CIS Office to ask about his card. He was interrogated about any problems he might have experienced with the law. He stated that he had had none, except traffic violations. The CIS representative informed him that their computer showed otherwise, and that they were therefore unable to issue him an I94, temporary proof of lawful permanent resident status.

2. Respondents’ refusal to provide Mr. Pantoja with evidence of

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/02/07 Page 2 of 4
his lawful permanent resident status places significant restrictions on his liberty not shared by the populace at large, within the meaning of Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236,240 (1963).
3. Petitioner is a resident of Pharr, Texas, and the primary events at issue occurred in McAllen and Harlingen, Texas, all of which are within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
II. THE PARTIES 3. Petitioner Elias Pantoja, is a native and citizen of Mexico, who has been a lawful permanent resident since February 4, 1969. He resides in Pharr, Texas.
4. Respondent Dora J. Sanchez is the Field Officer In Charge the Harlingen Office of the U.S.C.I.S. Respondent Michael Chertoff is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Both are sued in their official capacities only.
III. THE FACTS 5. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico who became a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. (“LPR”), on or about February 4, 1969, and has continuously resided here ever since. Exhibit A.
6. On or about November 27, 2007, Mr. Pantoja filed a fee-paid Form I-90, in order to obtain a new card. On February 14, 2007, he complied with the requirement that he be printed and photographed, at which time his I-551 was extended through May, 2007. Exhibit “A.” Although he had complied with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §264.5, his new card has not arrived. Therefore, shortly after the expiration of the extension of his card, Mr. Pantoja went to the Respondents’ office in Harlingen, Texas, to inquire about his card, and obtain valid proof of his LPR status.
7. Respondents interrogated him about problems he had allegedly experienced with the law, as shown by their computer, but without identifying the alleged problems. Although the regulations do not
2

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/02/07 Page 3 of 4
so specify, given that it takes CIS about a year to process I-90 applications for replacements for expiring I-551s, it has been customary for years that Respondents provide applicants with I-94s as temporary proof of LPR status. However, because Petitioner denied having had such problems, Respondents declined to either further extend his expired I-551, or provide any other form of temporary proof of his status, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1304(d). Instead, they instructed him to await correspondence from them.
8. As a result, Petitioner can no longer travel, either to the interior of the United States, or to visit Mexico. He has been forced to cancel a planned trip up North with his family. Similarly, he lacks valid proof of his lawful status in the United States to show to immigration or other law enforcement officers, if asked, or for other valid purposes. This places significant restrictions on his liberty not shared by the populace at large, within the meaning of Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236,240 (1963).
IV. THE CAUSES OF ACTION - REFUSAL TO PROVIDE PROOF OF ALIEN REGISTRATION: 8 U.S.C. §1304(d)
The deprivation of liberty complained of herein violates the laws and Constitution of the United States, which claims are cognizable in habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241.
A. HABEAS CORPUS Under 8 U.S.C. §1304(d), Respondents have a non-discretionary duty to provide Petitioner with “a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.” See, 8 C.F.R. §264.1 (“Prescribed Registration Forms”) and 8 C.F.R. §299.1 (showing I-551 as the “Prescribed Form” for a “Permanent Resident Card”); Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 231 F.3d 984,988,n.8 (5th Cir. 2000), quoting Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433,1444 (2nd Cir. 1991) ("The INA mandates that the Attorney General provide LPRs who register with proof of their legal status.") Respondents’ refusal to provide Petitioner with such a
3

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/02/07 Page 4 of 4

document violates the laws and Constitution of the United States.
B. MANDAMUS - FAILURE TO ISSUE ALIEN REGISTRATION RECEIPT
Respondents have a duty to provide Petitioner with proof of his LPR status. Petitioner herein completed the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §264.5 on February 14, 2007, as shown by the fact that his expiring card was extended until the end of May, 2007. This duty is a purely ministerial one, subject to enforcement by Writ of Mandamus.
C. INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Under 8 U.S.C. §1304(d), Respondents have a duty to provide Mr. Pantoja with a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card. Their recent policy of refusing to do so after the initial extension of an expired I-551 is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. As a result, Petitioner is entitled to injunctive, and corresponding declaratory relief.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED Wherefore, Petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus, freeing him from the unlawful restraint on his liberty. He also seeks a Writ of Mandamus, mandating that Respondents provide him with evidence of his status as a lawful permanent resident, and corresponding injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as such other and further relief as the Court may find to be just and appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Lisa S. Brodyaga 17891 Landrum Park Rd. San Benito, TX 78586 (956) 421-3226

TX Bar No: 03052800 Federal ID: 1178

4

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
McALLEN DIVISION

JOSE JESUS RODRIGUEZ-PADILLA,

)

GUADALUPE GONZALEZ-MORA, and

)

REYNALDO OZUNA-VILLAREAL,

)

Individually on their own behalf, and

)

on behalf of all others similarly situated. )

)

v.

)

)

DORA J. SANCHEZ, FIELD OFFICER IN CHARGE,

)

U.S.C.I.S., HARLINGEN, TEXAS,

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY,

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

)

)

CA M-07-204

SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Jose Jesus Rodriguez-Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez-Mora, and Reynaldo Ozuna-Villareal, through counsel, and pursuant to Rule 15(a), Fed. Rules. Civ. Proc., file the instant Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (28 U.S.C. §2241); and for Writ of Mandamus, (28 U.S.C. §1361), and class action Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 (federal question), and 1346(a)(2) (actions against Officers of the United States), together with 28 U.S.C. §2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act).

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE CASE

Under 8 U.S.C. §1304(d), Respondents have a non-discretionary duty to provide all lawful permanent residents, (“LPRs”), with “a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.” See, 8 C.F.R. §264.1 (permitting I-94s as evidence of LPR status for those who “have not been registered previously,” 1 those allowed to depart without institution of deportation proceedings, and those

1 Ironically, Defendants have all but discontinued the use of I-94s for newly-minted LPRs, because they can process and issue the I-551 within a period of ten days to two weeks from the approval of an I-485 application for LPR status.

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 2 of 13
placed under deportation proceedings), 2 and 8 C.F.R. §299.1 (showing the I-551 as the Prescribed Form for a Permanent Resident Card); 3 Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 231 F.3d 984,988,n.8 (5th Cir. 2000), quoting Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433, 1444 (2nd Cir. 1991) ("The INA mandates that the Attorney General provide LPRs who register with proof of their legal status"). Neither regulation authorizes I-94s as evidence of LPR status while Defendants conduct “security checks” in connection with the filing of an I-90.
Initially, green cards were issued without expiration dates. However, a number of years ago, the process was changed. The oldest cards were invalidated, and new cards were issued only for ten year periods, after which LPR must renew them by filing a Form I-90. Lost and mutilated cards are also replaced by filing I-90s. See, 8 C.F.R. §264.5. Said regulation sets forth the process of obtaining replacement cards, and requires that the applicant provide “the prior Permanent Resident Card or other evidence of permanent residence or commuter status,” §264.5(e)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). It also mandates that the applicant be fingerprinted on Form FD-258, 8 C.F.R. §264.5(e)(3).
Recently, Defendants have converted the process by which new I-551 cards are issued into an enforcement procedure, and delay the issuance of such cards, and, in some cases, even the provision of temporary proof of LPR status, as a means of coercing compliance with requirements beyond those contemplated, or authorized, by law. Further, instead of simple fingerprint cards, applicants must now submit to a full bio-metric data collection, 4 and most recently, they may be asked to provide extensive documentation, in addition
2 The regulation has not yet been updated to include removal proceedings, although I-94s are used in that connection as well.
3 Historically, such alien registration cards for LPRs have been called “green cards.” At present, such cards are issued on Form I-551, and both terms will be used herein.
4 Because it is reasonable, Plaintiffs are not challenging the introduction of this new technology.
2

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 3 of 13
to their expiring I-551s or other proof of LPR status. For example, the preprinted notice of biometrics appointments now generally used states as follows, [43:2] (emphasis in original):
3. DISPOSITION OF ARREST(S). Applicants must bring certified or original evidence of disposition of any arrest/charge in or outside the U.S. Unless it is alcohol or drug related, you do not need to submit documentation for traffic incidents that do not involve an arrest if the only penalty was a fine of less than $500 and/or points on your driver’s license. Failure to provide this information may result in your application being delayed or denied.
On January 31, 2005, Defendants adopted two new versions of the biometrics appointment notice. One with the above language, [43:2], and one without, [45:4]. The one without this language was used for biometrics appointments in I-90 cases at least as of August, 2005, [45:4], 5 but on information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants no longer use it in I-90 cases, if at all.
The centers where biometrics are taken have the equipment to place strips on the back of I-551s, extending their validity. Although Defendants frequently extend expiring or expired I-551s when the biometrics are taken, they do not always do so. 6 Most members of the putative class are unaware that this possibility exists, and do not affirmatively request extensions if Defendants fail to grant
5 Such language is appropriate in connection with other types of applications, where the existence of a criminal record is relevant to eligibility for the benefit sought, e.g., applicants for asylum, or for adjustment of status, where the applicant is not already an LPR, and is seeking to become one. It is not appropriate where eligibility simply depends on whether the applicant continues to be an LPR. It is doubtless for this reason that two versions of the form were simultaneously promulgated, and the one without the offending language was, at least for a while, used in connection with I-90 applications.
6 Plaintiffs have thus far been unable to discern any pattern in the grant or failure to grant such extensions, and consider that it is probably arbitrary, and left to the discretion of the officials on duty at the time.
3

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 4 of 13
them on their own initiative. An I-90 applicant could request an I-94 as temporary proof of LPR status 7 at a District Office, but said offices lack the equipment to put strips on the back of I-551 cards, extending their validity, and, as held in Loa-Herrera, supra, I-94s are an inadequate substitute for an I-551.
Further, when the biometric checks reveal a “hit,” (i.e., that an I-90 applicant has had some involvement with the criminal justice system), Defendants delay the issuance of the I-551 while they conduct “security checks.” This often causes the issuance of the I-551 to be delayed beyond the validity of any “stip” placed on the back of an expired or expiring I-551, and sometimes results in delays that can only be called ridiculous. 8
Plaintiffs assert that in I-90 cases, the use of the biometrics appointment form demanding documents relating to criminal records, and the attendant threat to delay or deny issuance of a new I-551, are improper. They also assert that failing to put the strip, extending the validity of an I-551, on all expired or expiring I551s when the applicant appears for his/her biometrics appointment, and delaying issuance of a new I-551 while they conduct “security checks,” are inconsistent with Defendants’ statutory obligation to provide Plaintiffs with appropriate evidence of their LPR status. Plaintiffs also urge that to require personal interviews of I-90 applicants for reasons other than to determine actual eligibility for a new I-551 is inappropriate. See, 8 C.F.R. §264.5(e)(3)(ii).
7 Under 8 U.S.C. §1304(d), the certificate of alien registration or alien registration card “shall be issued ... in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.” The only form listed by the regulations as proof of LPR status is the I-551. See, 8 C.F.R. §299.1. And, as found inLoa-Herrera, supra at 986-87, LPRs who are given I-94s in lieu of I-551s face “a greater degree of harassment by the INS and diminished employment opportunities.”
8 Plaintiff Ozuna, for example, filed an I-90 in 2001, and has yet to receive his I-551, due to alleged delays in completing the “security checks,” notwithstanding repeated prodding.
4

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 5 of 13
Consequently, Plaintiffs seek declaratory, and corresponding injunctive relief, limiting the demands which Defendants may make on an LPR who has filed an I-90 to those which are consistent with both 8 C.F.R. §264.5 and the underlying statutory provisions, including 8 U.S.C. §§1304(d) and 1229a(c)(3). Plaintiffs also seek declaratory, and corresponding injunctive relief, requiring that, when an I-90 applicant with an expiring and expired I-551 appears for his/her biometrics appointment, Defendants place a strip on the reverse of the I-551, extending its validity for the period of time it is anticipated that it will take to adjudicate the I-90, and that when an I-90 applicant seeking to replace a lost or destroyed I-551 appears for his/her biometrics appointment, Defendants provide an I-94, temporary proof of LPR status, valid for an equivalent period. Finally, Plaintiffs seek declaratory, and corresponding injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants from delaying issuance of a new I-551 for reasons other than to ascertain eligibility for a new card, such as while they attempt to pressure an I-90 applicant into providing records involving alleged criminal activity, or while they conduct “security checks.”
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jose Jesus Rodriguez-Padilla, (“Mr. Rodriguez”), is a 39-yearold native and citizen of Mexico, who has resided in the United States as a lawful permanent resident since 1981. In July of 2005, Mr. Rodriguez filed an I-90, seeking to renew an expired I-551. To date, he has not received his new I-551, the lack of which places significant restrictions on his liberty not shared by the populace at large, and constitutes “custody” for habeas purposes.
2. Guadalupe Gonzalez-Mora, (“Mr. Gonzalez”), is a native and citizen of Mexico, who has been a lawful permanent resident since 1990, and a lawful temporary resident since 1988. He currently resides in Palmview, Texas. On September 21, 2007, Mr. Gonzalez filed an I-90 to renew his expired I-551. He received a biometrics
5

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 6 of 13
appointment for December 5, 2007. It instructed as follows: 3. DISPOSITION OF ARREST(S) . Applicants must bring certified or original evidence of disposition of any arrest/charge in or outside the U.S.. Unless it is alcohol or drug related, you do not need to submit documentation for traffic incidents that do not involve an arrest if the only penalty was fine of less than $500 and/or points on your driver’s license. Failure to provide this information may result in your application being delayed or denied.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit N, [Document 43]. Mr. Gonzalez attended his biometrics appointment, in McAllen, Texas, but no strip was placed on his I-551, extending its validity I-551, the lack of which places significant restrictions on his liberty not shared by the populace at large, and constitutes “custody” for habeas purposes.
3. Reynaldo Ozuna-Villareal, (“Mr. Ozuna”), is a native and citizen of Mexico, who resides in Rio Grande City, Texas. Mr. Ozuna filed a fee-paid application to replace his expired I-551 on August 7, 2001. Said application has never been adjudicated, allegedly because Defendants have not completed their “security checks.” Despite countless trips to the office of Defendant Sanchez, he has received only an I-94, temporary evidence of LPR status, which has been repeatedly extended. Exhibit Q, [Doc. 49].
II. THE PARTIES 4. Jose Jesus Rodriguez-Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez-Mora, and Reynaldo Ozuna-Villareal are all natives and citizens of Mexico, and lawful permanent residents of the United States. Petitioner Rodriguez resides in Rockford, Illinois, Petitioner Gonzalez, in Palmview, Texas, and Petitioner Ozuna, in Rio Grande City, Texas.
5. Respondent/Defendant Dora J. Sanchez is the Field Officer In Charge the Harlingen Office of the U.S.C.I.S. Respondent/Defendant Michael Chertoff is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Both are sued in their official capacities only. The United States of America is also a Defendant herein.
6

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 7 of 13
III. THE FACTS A. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Depending on where the application is processed, it generally takes Defendants from about six to eighteen months to process I-90 applications for replacements of expired or expiring I-551s. See, Exh. “P” [Doc. 48]. Defendants therefore customarily provide I-90 applicants with temporary proof of LPR status. This usually occurs when the applicant appears for his/her biometrics appointment, at which time a stip is placed on the back of the old I-551, extending its validity for a period of about six months.
7. If a new I-551 has not been issued before the expiration of the extended I-551, there is often no procedure by which an I-90 applicant can request another strip on his/her I-551, further extending the validity thereof. Nor are there generally available procedures by which I-90 applicants who did not receive such a strip at the biometrics appointment can thereafter request one. The best that can be obtained in such cases is usually an I-94, temporary proof of LPR status.
B. PETITIONER JOSE JESUS RODRIGUEZ-PADILLA 8. Jose Jesus Rodriguez-Padilla is a 39-year-old native and citizen of Mexico. In 1981, Mr. Rodriguez adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident. Mr. Rodriguez has had several arrests and one conviction, (in 1995), in Cook County, IL, between 1992 and 2004. He also has at least on arrest/conviction in California.
9. In July of 2005, Mr. Rodriguez filed a I-90 to renew his expired I-551. He attended his biometrics appointment in September, 2005. In October, 2005, he received a Request For Evidence for dispositions of all arrests from 1987 to the present. Said Request stated that the documents were required to “complete the processing” of his I-90 application. In October 2005, Mr. Rodriguez sent a copy of his Chicago arrest history. Defendants subsequently gave him a temporary stamp on his I-551 extending it to March 2006. Mr. Rodriguez does not recall when or if he received another RFE
7

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 8 of 13
but he did request his arrest history from California in July 2006.
10. Mr. Rodriguez received another RFE dated December 3, 2007, demanding sworn statements, his arrest history, and certified court dispositions for each and every arrest. The notice allowed him 30 days to respond, and warned that no extensions would be granted. The notice also stated as follows:
If the evidence submitted does not establish that your case was approvable at the time it was filed, it can be denied. If you do not respond to this request within the time allowed, your case will be considered abandoned and denied due to lack of prosecution. Evidence received in this office after the due date may not be considered.
Through counsel, Mr. Rodriguez declined to provide any further documentation. To date, his counsel has not received a response, or his new I-551. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit O, (Document 45).
C. PETITIONER GUADALUPE GONZALEZ-MORA 11. Guadalupe Gonzalez-Mora is a native and citizen of Mexico.He has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1990, and a lawful temporary resident since 1988. He currently resides in Palmview, Texas. In 1994, Mr. Gonzalez was given probation for the offense of simple possession of marijuana. An Order to Show Cause was issued, but was never filed with the EOIR.
12. On September 21, 2007, Mr. Gonzalez filed an I-90 to renew his expired I-551. And on November 27, 2007, he affirmatively filed an I-191 with Respondent Sanchez, seeking 212(c) relief, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §212.3(a)(1). He received a biometrics appointment on his I-90 for December 5, 2007. It instructed as follows:
3. DISPOSITION OF ARREST(S) . Applicants must bring certified or original evidence of disposition of any arrest/charge in or outside the U.S.. Unless it is alcohol or drug related, you do not need to submit documentation for traffic incidents that do not involve an arrest if the only penalty was fine of less than $500 and/or points on your driver’s license. Failure to provide this information may result in your application
8

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 9 of 13

being delayed or denied.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit N, [Document 43].

13. Mr. Gonzalez attended the biometrics appointment. He took a

copy of the I-191 and supporting documents, including a copy of his

conviction record, and proof of payment of the pertinent fine, but

did not take “certified or original” copies thereof.

No strip

extending the validity of his I-551 was placed thereon when he

attended his biometrics appointment. As of filing the instant

action, he has neither received an appointment on his I-191, nor

any further communication regarding his I-90.

D. PETITIONER REYNALDO OZUNA-VILLAREAL 14. Reynaldo Ozuna has been a lawful permanent resident since December 1, 1990, and was a lawful temporary resident since about 1987. In 1996, Mr. Ozuna pled guilty to a marijuana offense. On August 7, 2001, when returning from a temporary visit abroad, Mr. Ozuna was stopped, because his I-551 had expired, and because the computer showed his marijuana conviction. He filed an I-90, and surrendered his I-551 in exchange for an I-94, with multiple notations. But removal proceedings were never initiated. Instead, on February 10, 2002, Mr. Ozuna affirmatively applied for §212(c) relief, which application was granted on November 12, 2003, by then Interim District Director Alfonso De Leon.

15. Since then, Mr. Ozuna has made numerous trips to Mexico, using his I-94, and has often experienced delays on his return. Allegedly because the “background checks” have not been completed, his I-90 has never been adjudicated, and he has never received his I-551, despite repeated inquiries.
IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 16. The above are not isolated problems. Rather, they are the result of nationwide practices recently adopted by Defendants.
17. Plaintiffs herein seek to represent a national class,

9

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 10 of 13
consisting of all persons who have been or will be afforded the status of permanent residents, who have filed or will in the future file I-90 applications to renew or replace their I-551s, and who have or will have complied with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §264.5, and in whose cases: 1) at the time the applicant appeared for his/her biometrics appointment, Defendants did not or will not extend their I-551s, (or, for those applicants seeking to replace a lost or destroyed I-551, did not or will not issue an I-94, temporary proof of LPR status), valid for a period of time roughly equivalent to the published processing time for I-90s in the district wherein their applications were filed, or 2) Defendants have not adjudicated or will not adjudicate the I-90 in accordance with their published processing schedules.
18. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the class as so defined numbers at least in the dozens, if not the hundreds, not counting future members.
19. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. Joinder is particularly impracticable since the class includes future members.
20. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class.
21. The representative parties, and their counsel, can and will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
22. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the class which predominate over any individual questions. Further, Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief, with respect to the class as a whole.
V. THE CAUSES OF ACTION A. HABEAS CORPUS
The deprivation of the liberty of Petitioners as complained of
10

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 11 of 13
herein violates the laws and Constitution of the United States, which claims are cognizable in habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241.
Under 8 U.S.C. §1304(d), Respondents have a non-discretionary duty to provide Petitioners with “a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.” See, 8 C.F.R. §264.1 (“Prescribed Registration Forms”) and 8 C.F.R. §299.1 (showing I-551 as the “Prescribed Form” for a “Permanent Resident Card”); Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 231 F.3d 984,988,n.8 (5th Cir. 2000), quoting Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433,1444 (2nd Cir. 1991) ("The INA mandates that the Attorney General provide LPRs who register with proof of their legal status.") Respondents’ failure to provide Petitioners with such documents violates the laws and Constitution of the United States.
B. MANDAMUS - FAILURE TO ISSUE ALIEN REGISTRATION RECEIPT
Under 8 U.S.C. §1304(d), Respondents have a duty to provide Plaintiffs with proof of their LPR status. The named Plaintiffs have all completed the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §264.5. Defendants have no lawful authority to delay the issuance of documentation evidencing their LPR status, as specified by 8 C.F.R. §264.1 and §299.1, while they conduct “security checks,” or for any other reason unrelated to whether the applicant continues to be a lawful permanent resident. The duty to issue an I-551 after an LPR has filed an I-90, and complied with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §264.5, is a purely ministerial one, and is subject to enforcement by Writ of Mandamus.
C. CLASS-WIDE RELIEF INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Under 8 U.S.C. §1304(d), Defendants have a duty to provide Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, with alien registration receipt cards in the prescribed form, to wit, other than in limited instances not relevant herein, an I-551. Defendants have no lawful authority to demand that I-90 applicants
11

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 12 of 13
provide documents or submit to a personal interview relating to anything other than their continued LPR status, or to delay the issuance of I-551s while they conduct “security checks,” or for any other reason unrelated to whether the I-90 applicant is eligible for a new I-551, i.e., whether s/he continues to be a lawful permanent resident. The failure to timely issue such cards violates Defendants’ statutory duties. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive, and corresponding declaratory relief.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED Wherefore, Petitioners seek a Writ of Habeas Corpus, freeing them from the unlawful restraint on their liberty.
The named Plaintiffs also seek a Writ of Mandamus, mandating that Defendants provide them forthwith with appropriate evidence of their status as lawful permanent residents, to wit, their I-551s;
The named Plaintiffs also request class certification, and on their own behalf and on behalf of the class they seek to represent, an injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants: 1) from using the version of the 2005 revision of the biometrics appointment notice requiring documents relating to criminal activity, rather than the one without such language, in connection with I-90 applications; 2) from not placing a strip on expired or expiring I-551 of I-90 applicants appearing for their biometric appointments, extending the validity thereof for the time necessary to process the I-90, as set forth in their published processing schedules, 9 and 3) from making demands on Plaintiffs for documents or person interviews, or delaying the issuance of their I-551s, for any reason unrelated to their eligibility for such cards, to wit, whether they continue to be lawful permanent residents. Plaintiffs also seek corresponding declaratory relief, and such other and further relief as the Court
9 Hopefully, this would also motivate Defendants to bring the time for processing I-90s in California, (currently about 18 months), into line with the rest of the country, (about 6 months).
12

Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 50-2 Filed in TXSD on 01/21/08 Page 13 of 13

may find to be just and appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Lisa S. Brodyaga 17891 Landrum Park Rd. San Benito, TX 78586 (956) 421-3226

TX Bar No: 03052800 Federal ID: 1178

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that copies of the foregoing was served electronically on Rene Benavides, AUSA, and Arthur Rizer, Attorney, OIL, on January 21, 2008.
s/ Lisa S. Brodyaga

13

 
 Case 7:07-cv-00204 Document 90 Filed in TXSD on 01/05/11 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION

ELIAS PANTOJA-CASTILLO, et al,
Petitioners, VS.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al,
Respondents.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. M-07-204 § § § §

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

It is hereby ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice is

hereby GRANTED.

SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2011, at McAllen, Texas.
___________________________________ Randy Crane United States District Judge

1 / 1

 
 Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 1 of 9
CLOSED,HABEAS,MJSELECT
U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (McAllen) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:07−cv−00204

Pantoja−Castillo v. Chertoff et al Assigned to: Judge Randy Crane Related Case: 7:07−cv−00242 Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Petitioner

Date Filed: 08/02/2007 Date Terminated: 09/04/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General) Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Elias Pantoja−Castillo TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga Attorney at Law 17891 Landrum Park Rd San Benito, TX 78586−7197 956−421−3226 Fax: 956−421−3423 Email: lisabrodyaga@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
Benedictor Diaz−Resendez TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
Carlos Alberto Romero−Salazar TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Respondent
Michael Chertoff Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

represented by Arthur Rizer US Dept of Justice Civil Division PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−0106 Email: arthur.rizer@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Flor M. Suarez Dept of Justice Civil Division−Office of Immigration 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Email: flor.suarez@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rene Carlo Benavides Gutierrez Wymer 7718 Broadway San Antonio, TX 78209 210−225−2299

Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 2 of 9

Fax: 210−225−2266 Email: rbenavides@gutierrezwymer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Dora J. Sanchez Field Officer in Charge, U.S.C.I.S, Harlingen, Texas

represented by Arthur Rizer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Flor M. Suarez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rene Carlo Benavides (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent United States Of America

represented by Arthur Rizer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Flor M. Suarez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rene Carlo Benavides (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Jorge Jimenez−Godinez

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Guillermo Cisneros−Flores

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Margarito S Gomez

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Guillermo Alonso Trejo

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 3 of 9

Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Reynaldo Ozuna−Villareal

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Jose Montes−Moreno

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Alfredo Leyva

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Francisco Ronce−Benavides

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Julian Alvarado−Chavez

represented by Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/02/2007 08/02/2007 08/02/2007 08/17/2007

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 2910598) filed by Elias Pantoja−Castillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Summonses)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
2 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 10/3/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge Randy Crane. Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
Summons Issued as to Michael Chertoff, Secretary DHS; Dora J. Sanchez, acting DD; U.S. Attorney, civil processing; Alberto Gonzales, United States Of America.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
3 First AMENDED Complaint against Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America filed by Benedictor Diaz−Resendez, Carlos Romero−Salazar. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered:

Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 4 of 9

09/19/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/21/2007 09/24/2007
09/24/2007 09/24/2007
09/25/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/28/2007 09/28/2007
09/29/2007
09/30/2007
10/02/2007

08/17/2007)
4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Pantoja, Diaz &Romero, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
5 RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Michael Chertoff served on 8/30/2007, answer due 10/29/2007, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
6 RETURN of Service Executed as to Dora J. Sanchez on 08/27/07 re: Answer date is 10/26/07 summons, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) Modified on 9/20/2007 (ncavazos, ). (Entered: 09/20/2007)
7 RETURN of Service Executed as to United States of America on 08/21/07 re: Answer deadline 10/20/07 summons, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) Modified on 9/20/2007 (ncavazos, ). (Entered: 09/20/2007)
8 MOTION to Certify Class by Benedictor Diaz−Resendez, Carlos Romero−Salazar, Elias Pantoja−Castillo, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/11/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
9 Unopposed MOTION for Arthur Rizer to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/15/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
10 Unopposed MOTION to Abate by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/15/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
11 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Benedictor Diaz−Resendez, Carlos Romero−Salazar, Elias Pantoja−Castillo, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/15/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
12 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Respondents, filed.(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
13 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
14 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Suspend Joint Discovery Requirements.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
15 ORDER granting 9 Unopposed MOTION for Arthur Rizer to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Attorney Arthur Rizer for Michael Chertoff and Dora J. Sanchez added.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
16 MOTION to Dismiss Petitioners' Case by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/18/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
17 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff' Motion for Class Certification by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/18/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
18 RESPONSE in Opposition to 17 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff' Motion for Class Certification, filed by Benedictor Diaz−Resendez, Carlos Romero−Salazar, Elias Pantoja−Castillo, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/29/2007)
19 RESPONSE in Opposition to 16 MOTION to Dismiss Petitioners' Case, filed by Benedictor Diaz−Resendez, Carlos Romero−Salazar, Elias Pantoja−Castillo, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/30/2007)
20 AFFIDAVIT of Rincones re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss Petitioners' Case, filed.(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 5 of 9

10/03/2007 10/03/2007
10/15/2007 10/16/2007
10/16/2007 10/17/2007 10/17/2007 10/22/2007 11/09/2007
11/19/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/24/2007 12/27/2007
12/27/2007
01/03/2008

21 ORDER: Motions Hearing set for 11/7/2007 at 10:00 AM before Judge Randy Crane.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randy Crane. Initial PRETRIAL and SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 10/3/2007. The Court addressed counsel re: pending motions. The Court will set a hearing on the issue of mootness and if necessary, allow the intervention of another named plaintiff and also allow time for briefing. The Court will issue an order setting a hearing on pending motions for 11/07/2007 at 10:00 A.M. Appearances: Elisabeth Lisa S. Brodyaga; Rene C. Benavides, AUSA.(ERO:Richard Cortez [10:10−10:16]), filed.(lcervantes) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition to 11 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, filed by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
23 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Benedictor Diaz−Resendez, Carlos Romero−Salazar, Elias Pantoja−Castillo, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/5/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
24 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed. (Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
25 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed. (Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
26 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed. (Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
27 REPLY to 16 MOTION to Dismiss Petitioners' Case, filed by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America. (Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
28 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Benedictor Diaz−Resendez, Carlos Romero−Salazar, Elias Pantoja−Castillo, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Margarito S Gomez, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/29/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition to 28 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, filed by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez. (Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
30 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 12/07/2007)
31 ORDER granting 11 , 28 , 23 Motions to Intervene; and granting 16 Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff/Petitioner Pantoja; Diaz and Salazar.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
*** Party Carlos Romero−Salazar; Benedictor Diaz−Resendez and Elias Pantoja−Castillo terminated. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
32 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 12/07/2007)
33 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/27/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) Filer corrected on 12/10/2007 (ltien, ). (Entered: 12/07/2007)
34 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 12/24/2007)
35 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond To Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/16/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
36 RESPONSE to 35 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond To Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene, filed by Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Margarito S Gomez. (Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
37 ORDER granting 35 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Motion to Intervene. Deadline to respond to plaintiff's Motion to Intervene is extended to

Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 6 of 9

01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/10/2008 01/10/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008
01/20/2008 01/20/2008 01/21/2008
01/21/2008 01/30/2008 02/04/2008

01/11/2008.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
38 EXHIBITS re: 8 MOTION to Certify Class by Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Margarito S Gomez, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
39 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 01/08/2008)
40 MOTION to Intervene by Guillermo Alonso Trejo, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/28/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
41 MOTION to Dismiss by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/29/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
42 RESPONSE in Opposition to 40 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Exhibit)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
43 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 01/09/2008)
44 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE: Status Conference set for 1/18/2008 at 09:00 AM before Judge Randy Crane.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
45 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 01/10/2008)
46 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/30/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
47 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE Status Conference set for 2/15/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Randy Crane.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randy Crane. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 1/18/2008. The Court addressed counsel and their positions. The Court granted 46 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, and 41 MOTION to Dismiss; denied 33 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, and 40 MOTION to Intervene. This case is still active and live. The Court will allow plaintiff's counsel to amend the petition and file an unopposed motion to amend. The Court will issue an order setting a status conference for February 15, 2008 at 9:30 A.M. If necessary, counsel may file a motion for continuance. Appearances: Elisabeth Lisa S. Brodyaga; Rene C. Benavides, AUSA.(ERO:Richard Cortez [10:13−10:28]), filed.(lcervantes) (Entered: 01/21/2008)
48 EXHIBITS by Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 01/20/2008)
49 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 01/20/2008)
50 Unopposed MOTION to Amend by Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Reynaldo Ozuna−Villareal, Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/11/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Complaint)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 01/21/2008)
51 Amended MOTION to Certify Class by Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Reynaldo Ozuna−Villareal, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/11/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 01/21/2008)
52 ORDER granting 50 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Petition.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
53 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/25/2008. (Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 02/04/2008)

Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 7 of 9

02/05/2008 02/07/2008 02/11/2008
02/12/2008 02/22/2008
03/07/2008
03/07/2008
03/28/2008 03/28/2008
03/28/2008 03/28/2008
04/10/2008 04/13/2008 04/13/2008 04/14/2008 04/14/2008 04/14/2008

54 PROPOSED ORDER re: 53 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint, filed.(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
55 ORDER granting 53 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
56 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to Amended Complaint and Continue Hearing by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/3/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
57 ORDER RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE: Status Conference reset for 4/18/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Randy Crane.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
58 ORDER granting 56 Defendants' Second Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is extended and now due on 3/11/2008.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
59 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/27/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
60 ORDER granting 59 Defendants' Third Uncontested Motion to Extend the Time to Respond to the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Defendant's deadline to respond is extended to 4/16/08. ( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
61 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 03/28/2008)
62 EXHIBITS re: 51 Amended MOTION to Certify Class by Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, Guillermo Alonso Trejo, Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Margarito S Gomez, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
63 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Jose Montes−Moreno, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/17/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
64 MEMORANDUM in Support of Prompt Adjudication re: 51 Amended MOTION to Certify Class by Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, Guillermo Alonso Trejo, Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Reynaldo Ozuna−Villareal, Jose Montes−Moreno, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Margarito S Gomez, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
65 RESPONSE in Opposition to 63 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, filed by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America. (Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
66 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Alfredo Leyva, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/5/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 04/13/2008)
67 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 04/13/2008)
68 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 04/14/2008)
69 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Francisco Ronce−Benavides, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/5/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
70 BRIEF In Support of Claim That Motion Is Ripe re: 51 Amended MOTION to Certify Class by Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, Guillermo Alonso Trejo, Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Reynaldo Ozuna−Villareal,

Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 8 of 9

04/16/2008 04/16/2008 04/17/2008 04/17/2008
04/17/2008 04/17/2008
04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008
05/22/2008 06/19/2008 06/19/2008 06/19/2008 08/15/2008

Jose Montes−Moreno, Alfredo Leyva, Francisco Ronce−Benavides, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Margarito S Gomez, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
71 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/6/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
72 RESPONSE in Opposition to 63 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 66 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 69 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, filed by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
73 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 04/17/2008)
74 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Julian Alvarado−Chavez, Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, Guillermo Alonso Trejo, Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Reynaldo Ozuna−Villareal, Jose Montes−Moreno, Alfredo Leyva, Francisco Ronce−Benavides, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Margarito S Gomez, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/7/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
75 Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 04/17/2008)
76 RESPONSE in Opposition to 71 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, filed by Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, Guillermo Alonso Trejo, Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Reynaldo Ozuna−Villareal, Jose Montes−Moreno, Alfredo Leyva, Francisco Ronce−Benavides, Julian Alvarado−Chavez, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Margarito S Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
77 EXHIBITS re: 71 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed.(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
78 ORDER RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE: Status Conference set for 6/20/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Randy Crane.( Signed by Judge Randy Crane ) Parties notified.(mzamarripa, ) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randy Crane. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 4/18/2008. Parties announced to the Court that they are close to a possible settlement and requested this case be reset. Without objections, the Court reset this case to Friday, June 20, 2008 @ 9:30 am. Appearances: Rene Carlo Benavides, Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga, Arthur Rizer.(ERO:Richard Cortez [11:09−11:11]), filed.(bgarces/lc) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
79 AFFIDAVIT of Tracy Renauld re: 71 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, filed.(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
80 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Reschedule June 20, 2008 Conference by Michael Chertoff, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/9/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rizer, Arthur) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
ORAL ORDER CANCELLED status conference set for Friday, 06/20/2008. The Court granted the 80 Joint Motion to Reschedule, a written order resetting will be issued., Deadline terminated..(Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(lcervantes) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
81 ORDER RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE: granting 80 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Reschedule June 20, 2008 Conference ( Status Conference reset for 8/15/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Randy Crane).(Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randy Crane. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 8/15/2008. Parties announced that this case has been

Case: 7:07-cv-204 As of: 11/10/2013 01:57 PM CST 9 of 9

08/15/2008
09/03/2008
09/04/2008 09/04/2008 11/15/2010 11/15/2010
11/29/2010 12/21/2010 01/04/2011
01/05/2011

resolved. The Court will issue a show cause order within three weeks. Appearances:David Guerra in lieu of Rene Carlo Benavides, Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga.(ERO:Richard Cortez [9:58−9:59]), filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
82 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Show Cause Hearing set for 9/5/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Randy Crane; terminating 51 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, 63 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 71 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 74 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 66 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 69 Opposed MOTION to Intervene.(Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
83 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss 50 Unopposed MOTION to Amend, 63 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 51 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, 66 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 69 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Jose Montes−Moreno, Alfredo Leyva, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Margarito S Gomez, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
ORAL ORDER by Judge Randy Crane: Show Cause Hearing set for 9/5/08 is cancelled until further notice. Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
84 ORDER granting 83 Motion to Dismiss.(Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
85 MOTION for Flor M Suarez to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/6/2010. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
86 RESPONSE in Opposition to 85 MOTION for Flor M Suarez to Appear Pro Hac Vice, filed by Julian Alvarado−Chavez, Guadalupe Arguello−Hernandez, Guillermo Cisneros−Flores, Margarito S Gomez, Guadalupe Gonzalez−Mora, Jorge Jimenez−Godinez, Alfredo Leyva, Jose Montes−Moreno, Reynaldo Ozuna−Villareal, Jose Jesus Rodriguez−Padilla, Francisco Ronce−Benavides, Enedelio Solis−Rodriguez, Guillermo Alonso Trejo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
87 MOTION for Flor M. Suarez to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/20/2010. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
88 ORDER granting 87 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(rcoronado, ) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
89 Joint MOTION to Dismiss 84 Order on Motion to Dismiss, 83 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss 50 Unopposed MOTION to Amend, 63 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 51 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, 66 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 69 Opposed MOTION to InterveneUnopposed MOTION to Dismiss 50 Unopposed MOTION to Amend, 63 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 51 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, 66 Opposed MOTION to Intervene, 69 Opposed MOTION to Intervene by Michael Chertoff, Dora J. Sanchez, United States Of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/25/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Suarez, Flor) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
90 ORDER granting 89 Motion to Dismiss.(Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 01/05/2011)