1 COOLEY GODWARD LLP JOHN C. DWYER (No. 136533)
2 MAUREEN P. ALGER (No. 208522) MICHELLE S. RHYU (No. 212922)
3 REUBEN H. CHEN (No. 228725) Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
4 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Telephone: (650) 843-5000
5 Facsimile: (650) 857-0663

6 LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW OF TEXAS
7 JAVIER N. MALDONADO (Pro Hac Vice) DAVID A. ARMENDARIZ (Pro Hac Vice)
8 118 Broadway, Suite 502 San Antonio, TX 78205
9 Telephone: (210) 277-1603 Facsimile: (210) 225-3958
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11 Santillan et al.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

15 MARIA SANTILLAN, FLORA RODRIGUEZ SANTILLAN, JAIME
16 RODRIGUEZ SANTILLAN, ANGELA DESOUZA,MARCOSSOSA
17 CARTAGENA, ZIBER ISMAIL!, ANITA LASBREY, ZOILA LOPEZ-GONZALEZ,
18 RAFAELA VALDEZ PARRA, MARIA VALDA MOHAMAD, on behalf of
19 themselves and all others similarly situated,

20

Plaintiffs,

v.

21 JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the

22

United States; TOM RIDGE, Secretary for Department of Homeland Security; THE

23

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES ("USCIS");

24

EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., USCIS Director; DAVID STILL, USCIS San Francisco

25 District Director,

Defendants.

26

27

Case No. (Not yet assigned)
COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CLASS ACTION
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT CASE

28
COOLEY GoDWARD LLP ATTORNn5> AT LAW PAl (l ALTO

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

This suit seeks to safeguard basic rights, such as the right to work, to Plaintiffs, who are

3 legal immigrants in the United States. Federal immigration judges and the Executive Office for

4 Immigration Review ("EOIR") have deemed Plaintiffs to be lawful permanent residents, entitled

5 to documentation of their legal immigrant status and the rights of lawful permanent residents.

6 But the government has refused or failed to perform its ministerial duty to issue documentation of

7 legal status to Plaintiffs. The government's inaction has caused Plaintiffs profound injuries,

8 ranging from the inability to be employed and support their families to the acute fear of being

9 detained and deported, because they are unable to demonstrate their legal status to officials.

10

Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, sue John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, the

11 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), Eduardo Aguirre Jr., and David

12 Still (collectively "Defendants"), and allege as follows:

13

1. This is a class action suit on behalf of persons who have successfully secured

14 relief from removal or deportation proceedings initiated by Defendants. The EOIR, which

15 encompasses the Immigration Courts of the United States and the Board ofImmigration Appeals

16 ("BIA"), have granted each of the Plaintiffs the status of "Lawful Permanent Resident" ("LPR").

17 Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") § 245, 8 U.S.c. § 1255. As explained herein, Plaintiffs

18 and the class members they seek to represent have been harmed by Defendants' failure to fulfill

19 their statutory and regulatory obligations to register aliens granted LPR status during removal

20 proceedings. Plaintiffs have furthermore been harmed by Defendants' failure to provide these

21 LPRs evidence of registration.

22

2.

Specifically, the failure of Defendants to issue even temporary documentation of

23 registration as LPRs has prevented Plaintiffs from securing and retaining employment. Without

24 official documentation, Plaintiffs are prevented from re-entering the U.S. if they travel abroad and

25 they live in fear of being detained or deported. Lack of documentation also prevents these LPRs

26 from obtaining Social Security cards, drivers' licenses, in-state tuition and financial aid for

27 college and unemployment benefits.

28
COOLEYGODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

3.

The EOIR has issued orders that declare Plaintiffs to be LPRs. The orders

2.

COMPLAINT

1 granting LPR status are final and are not under appeal.

2

4.

Plaintiffs have attempted to register as LPRs pursuant to their legal obligation and

3 have attempted to obtain temporary documentation of their registration pending issuance of

4 permanent documentation. They have nonetheless been denied evidence of registration as LPRs.

5 All of the class representatives have been waiting at least several months for documents

6 evidencing registration, and many Plaintiffs have already waited in excess of a year.

7

5.

Plaintiffs seek mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendants

8 to issue Plaintiffs and class members proper evidence of registration as LPRs pending receipt of

9 their Permanent Resident Cards.

l O l l . JURISDICTION

11

6.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

12 (federal question jurisdiction) because Plaintiffs' claims arise under the laws of the United States,

13 specifically, the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.) as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and

14 Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 1570, and the

15 regulations arising there under. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361

16 (Mandamus Act) and 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act), and 5 U.S.c. § 701 et seq.

17 (Administrative Procedure Act ("APA")). This Court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.c.

18 §§ 1361,2202, and 5 U.S.c. § 702 et seq.

19

7.

There are no administrative remedies available to Plaintiffs or class members to

20 redress the grievances described herein. This action challenges the failure of Defendants to issue

21 evidence of registration as LPRs that is due to Plaintiffs and does not challenge any discretionary

22 act by Defendants. The action does not challenge the granting or denial of individual

23 applications. Therefore, the jurisdictional limitations of INA § 242, 8 U.S.c. § 1252, do not 24 apply.

25 26
27
28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

III. VENUE 8. Venue lies in this Court under 28 U.S.c. § 1391(e), the venue statute applicable to civil actions in which a defendant is an officer of the United States acting in his official capacity. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because Defendant David Still resides in this

3.

COMPLAINT

1 district. Alternatively, venue is proper under 28 U.S.c. § 1391(e)(2) because a substantial part of 2 the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district. In particular, the 3 Immigration Court in San Francisco has granted LPR status, and the San Francisco district office 4 of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") has subsequently failed or refused to 5 issue evidence of registration for several of the named Plaintiffs.

6

IV. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7

9.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c), this action arises III the county of San

8 Francisco and is accordingly appropriately assigned to the San Francisco/Oakland division of this

9 Court.

10

V.DEFENDANTS

11

10. John Ashcroft is the Attorney General of the United States. He is charged with

12 administering and enforcing the immigration laws. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a), 1103(g). The Attorney

13 General is the head of the EOIR, to which he has delegated his authority to review administrative

14 determinations in immigration proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.

15

11. Tom Ridge is the U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security. He is charged with,

16 among other things, "[a]l1 authorities and functions of the Department of Homeland Security to

17 administer and enforce the immigration laws." 8 C.F.R. § 2.1; 8 U.S.C. § ll03(a). He is sued in

18 his official capacity.

19

12. The USCIS is a division of the Department of Homeland Security and is an

20 agency of the U.S. government. The USCIS has assumed the immigration benefits and services

21 functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"), which was eliminated effective

22 March 1, 2003. The USCIS accordingly has responsibility for administering the immigration

23 laws, including the INA and applicable regulations.

24

13. Eduardo Aguirre, Jr. is the National Director of the USCIS. In his capacity as

25 Director, Mr. Aguirre administers the immigration laws on behalf of the Secretary for Homeland

26
27
28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNFYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

Security and the DHS throughout the United States. He is sued in his official capacity. 14. David Still is District Director of the San Francisco District of the USCIS. In his
capacity as the San Francisco District Director, Mr. Still administers the immigration laws on

4.

COMPLAINT

1 behalf of the Secretary for Homeland Security and the DHS in all of the counties that comprise 2 the judicial district of the Northern District of California: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte,

3 Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Sonoma, Santa Clara,

4 Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey. Mr. Still also administers the immigration laws for the 5 following California counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calavaras, Colusa, E1 Dorado, Fresno,

6 Glenn, Inyo, Kern, King, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, 7 Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama,

8 Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba. See 8 CFR § 100.4. In his official capacity, Mr. Still

9 has decision-making authority with respect to the matters alleged in this complaint by Plaintiffs 10 and class members whose immigration cases are in the control of the San Francisco District 11 Office.

12

VI. RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

13

Removal, Cancellation of Removal, and LPR Status

14

15. Defendants, specifically the USCIS acting under the authority of the Attorney

15 General and the Secretary for the DHS, have the unique authority and duty to administer and

16 enforce the immigration laws of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1103.

17

16. The government may initiate removal proceedings against aliens it deems to be

18 deportable under 8 U.S.c. §§ 1182(a) and 1227(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(2). Generally, removal

19 proceedings are initiated with service of a Notice to Appear ("NTA") to the alien. The NTA

20 advises the alien of the nature of the proceedings, the charges of deportability against him or her,

21 the time and place at which the proceedings will be held, and the consequences for failing to

22 appear. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a); 8 C.F.R. §1003.15.

23

17. The NTA is also filed with the Immigration Court by representatives of DHS. 8

24 C.F.R. § 1003.14. The filing of the NTA vests jurisdiction with the Immigration Court, which

25 acts under the authority of the Attorney General within the EOIR. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1001.1(1),

26 1003.14.

27

18. Removal proceedings are conducted under the sole jurisdiction of EOIR. 8 C.F.R.

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALU ALTO

§§ 1003.0 et seq. (describing the organizational structure of EOIR), 1003.9-1003.44 (describing

5.

COMPLAINT

1 the Immigration Court and the rules of procedure for removal proceedings).

2

19. An alien may seek various forms of relief from removal, including cancellation of

3 removal, suspension of deportation, adjustment of status, and creation of a record of lawful

4 admission for permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11.

5

20. In particular, an alien may seek cancellation of removal and adjustment of status

6 under 8 US.c. § 1229b(b), which permits the Attorney General (and an immigration judge acting

7 with the authority of the Attorney General) to "cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an

8 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" under certain prescribed circumstances. Id.; 8

9 C.F.R. § 1240.1.

10

21. The term "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" means "the status of

11 having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an

12 immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed." 8 US.C.

13 §11 01(a)(20). Such status terminates only upon entry of a final administrative order of exclusion

14 or deportation. 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(p).

15

22. Title 8, section 1255 of the US. Code sets forth the categories of aliens who, at

16 the discretion of the Attorney General or Secretary for Homeland Security, may adjust their status

17 to that of an LPR.

18

23. Aliens who have resided for a long period of time in the United States and whose

19 removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent or

20 child who is a US. citizen or LPR may obtain cancellation of removal and adjustment of status

21 under 8 U.S.c. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

22

24. Victims of domestic abuse may obtain cancellation of removal ifthey meet certain

23 criteria. 8 U.S.c. § 1229b(b)(2).

24

25. Generally, an alien can adjust to LPR status if he or she was inspected and

25 admitted or paroled into the United States or is eligible under 8 U.S.c. §1255(i), as long as the

26 alien has a visa immediately available at the time of filing and is not otherwise statutorily

27 ineligible. 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.1, 1245.1. Parents, spouses, and children of US. citizen adults are

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP A TTORNFY~ AT LA W PALO AI Tn

eligible to adjust as long as they are not statutorily ineligible. INA § 245(a), 8 U.S.C 1255(a).

6.

COMPLAINT

1

26. For both cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, the alien must

2 affirmatively request relief by filing the proper forms, relevant evidence, and filing fees. 8 C.F.R.

3 §§ 1240.20, 1240.21 (describing procedures for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal).

4 In particular, aliens applying for adjustment of status or cancellation of removal must be

5 fingerprinted at an Application Support Center CASC").

6

27. On information and belief, DHS learns from EOIR or from the alien who is in

7 removal proceedings that the alien may be seeking adjustment of status or cancellation of

8 removal. When DHS learns that an alien is seeking adjustment of status or cancellation of

9 removal, the USCIS commences background checks on the individual. A DHS representative is

10 assigned to each alien file. The DHS representative evaluates the file and determines whether the

11 background checks have unearthed any adverse findings.

12

28. After the alien has submitted the required forms and fees, and the fingerprints

13 have cleared through the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the alien appears before an

14 Immigration Judge for a hearing on the merits of the removal. The DHS representative may

15 present all relevant information obtained in the background checks to the Immigration Judge at

16 the hearing. The Immigration Judge then approves or denies the request for cancellation of

17 removal and adjustment of status.

18

29. If the application for adjustment to LPR status is granted, the alien acquires LPR

19 status as ofthe date of the Immigration Judge's order. 8 U.S.c. § 1255(b). The Attorney General

20 must record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date of the

21 Immigration Judge's cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.c. § 1229b(b)(3).

22

30. When an Immigration Judge grants adjustment to LPR status during removal

23 proceedings, the decision is not merely a recommendation to the USCIS, but an appealable order.

24

31. The Immigration Judge's order regarding the alien's removal, cancellation of

25 removal, or other disposition of the case may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals if

26 a Notice to Appeal is filed within 30 calendar days after the stating of an Immigration Judge's

27 oral decision or the mailing of a written decision, so long as the filing party has not waived

28 appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38.

COOLEY GODWARD LLP

ATTORNEY:.- AT LAW

7.

PAUl A!T(\

COMPLAINT

32. Except when certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), the decision

2 of the Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to

3 appeal if no appeal is taken within 30 days, whichever occurs first. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.39,

4 1240.14, 1240.15. The USCIS is bound to give full effect to final decisions of the Immigration

5 Judge.

6

33. A party may appeal an order to the BIA. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1. LPR status may be

7 achieved when the BIA affinns an immigration court's order granting LPR status, or when the

8 BIA reverses an immigration court's denial ofLPR status.

9

Procedures After Adjustment to LPR Status

10

34. After granting relief from removal in the fonn of cancellation and adjustment of

11 status, the Immigration Judge issues a written order indicating the section of the law under which

12 relief was granted. No other documentation or photograph identification is given to the

13 immigrant that verifies that he or she is an LPR.

14

35. Upon infonnation and belief, after LPR status is granted to an alien in removal

15 proceedings, the alien's file is transferred to the USCIS to enable registration of the LPR and to

16 provide evidence of registration. Registration is required of aliens who adjust to LPR status in the

17 United States.

18

36. Registration commences with ADIT ("Alien Documentation, Identification and

19 Telecommunication") processing. An alien must undergo ADIT processing to initiate preparation 20 of a Pennanent Resident Card (Fonn 1-551), which constitutes evidence of LPR status. l 8 C.F.R.

21 § 210.5 (b). During ADIT processing, the alien presents to his or her local USCIS office proof of

22 identity, fingerprints, photographs and a signature. Id. Regulations require the USCIS to issue a

23 Pennanent Resident Card to an LPR "subsequent to the date of adjustment." Id.

24

37. Initiation of ADIT processing and registration is routinely taking more than six

25 months and in some cases more than a year after adjustment to LPR status for those who adjust

26 during removal proceedings. These LPRs are without adequate documentation of their LPR

27
28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTPRNEY., AT LAW PALO ALTO

1 The Pennanent Resident Card was fonnerly known as the Alien Registration Receipt Card and is commonly referred to as a "Green Card."

8.

COMPLAINT

1 status during the long period between being granted LPR status and the initiation of ADIT

2 processmg.

3

38. Once an Immigration Judge adjusts an alien's status, there are no statutes or

4 regulations that require the USCIS to conduct any further investigation prior to either initiating.

5 ADIT processing or to issuing a Permanent Resident Card.

6

39. Even if the USCIS initiates removal proceedings against an LPR, the LPR is

7 entitled to evidence of permanent resident status in the form of a temporary Form 1-551 stamp or

8 Permanent Resident Card until ordered deported or excluded from the United States. 8 C.F.R. §

9 264.5(g).

10

40. Registration of LPRs and issuance of evidence of registration (Permanent

11 Resident Cards and temporary 1-551 stamps) are ministerial acts, required to establish the record

12 of lawful permanent residence. The USCIS has an obligation to the LPR to complete these

13 ministerial acts as a direct result of a final order of an Immigration Judge.

14

41. The USCIS is the only U.S. agency that registers aliens who adjust to LPR status

15 in the United States.

16

42. The USCIS is also the only U.S. agency that provides evidence of registration to

17 LPRs who adjust in the United States. The USCIS has a duty to register LPRs and to provide

18 evidence of registration.

19

43. The Permanent Resident Card and temporary 1-551 stamp demonstrate

20 employment eligibility, eligibility to enter the United States lawfully, and authorization to work

21 and live in the United States. The Permanent Resident Card represents security to its holder,

22 instantly communicating to law enforcement officials and U.S. employers the holders' right to

23 permanently live and work in the United States.

24

Statutes and Regulations Requiring Documentation

25

44. The unreasonableness of Defendants' inaction as to the ministerial task of issuing

26 temporary or permanent evidence of registration as an LPR is compounded by the crucial value

27 and necessity of such evidence to Plaintiff class members.

28
COOLEY Goow ARD LLP
ATH1RNfYS AT LAW PAl (1 A! TP

45. An LPR who has attained the age of 18 is required by law to keep his Permanent

9.

COMPLAINT

1 Resident Card with him at all times. Failure to do so is a criminal misdemeanor. 8 US.C. §

2 1304(e).

3

46. Defendants have issued regulations that require LPRs to provide evidence of their

4 LPR status in order to be re-admitted into the United States after foreign travel. To be admitted to

5 the United States, LPRs must present one of the specifically enumerated documents, including the

6 temporary 1-551 stamp or Permanent Resident Card. 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(a). An Immigration

7 Judge's order adjusting to LPR status is not one of the listed documents that may be presented for

8 admission.

9

47. Congress heightened the importance of the Permanent Resident Card with its

10 adoption of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), Pub.L. No. 99-603. In

11 IRCA, Congress amended the INA to prohibit the unlawful employment of aliens who were not

12 LPRs unless they have special employment authorization by the Attorney General. 8 U.S.c. §§

13 1324a(b)(l)(B),(C) & (D), 1324a(h)(3). Domestic employers are subject to both civil and

14 criminal penalties if they knowingly hire an unauthorized alien or fail to comply with the

15 verification process established by the statute. 8 US.C. §§ 1324a(a), 1324a(e) & (:t). IRCA's

16 verification system requires that an employer attest that it has confirmed a prospective employee's

17 identity and employment authorization by reviewing one or more statutorily designated

18 documents. 8 US.C. § 1324a(b).

19

48. Although a Permanent Resident Card is not the only document establishing

20 employment eligibility, possession of the Permanent Resident Card is often a prerequisite for

21 obtaining some of the other accepted documents, such as a driver's license or Social Security

22 card. 8 U.S.c. § 1324a(b). Numerous class members have been unable to secure or retain work

23 as a result of the lack of acceptable documentation of employment eligibility.

24

49. The Immigration Judge's order, which lacks a photograph of the alien and other

25 security features, is not recognized by statute as evidence of registration necessary for

26 employment eligibility or identity. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(1)(B),(C) & (D); 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(v).

27

50. The Immigration Judge's order granting LPR status is not recognized as evidence

28
COOLEY GOOWARD LLP ATTURNHS AT LAW PAl (1 A! TO

of LPR status in the United States for the purpose of obtaining a Social Security card. 8 C.F.R.

10.

COMPLAINT

1 § 422.107.

2

51. Aliens granted LPR status by an Immigration Judge are restricted from their right

3 to travel because an Immigration Judge's order is not recognized as evidence of registration of

4 LPR status to allow admittance into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(a).

5

52. IRCA also provides that Permanent Resident Cards can be used as proof of LPR

6 status to establish eligibility for a variety of government funded assistance programs.

7 Specifically, eligibility for programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid,

8 unemployment compensation, food stamps, and Title IV educational assistance can be established

9 by presenting a Permanent Resident Card. IRCA, § 121(a)(I)-(a)(3). While not the exclusive

10 means of providing proof of LPR status under these provisions, the Permanent Resident Card is

11 the most widely utilized and accepted means of proving LPR status, and possession of a

12 Permanent Residence Card is a prerequisite for obtaining some of the other accepted documents.

13

53. As a result of lacking evidence of their legal status in the United States, LPRs live

14 in fear of being apprehended in raids for undocumented aliens and detained or deported by law

15 enforcement officials.

16

VII. PLAINTIFFS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

17 A. 18

Maria Santillan 54. Maria Santillan is a native of Mexico and has been living in the United States for

19 almost 20 years. She currently lives in Merced, California with two sons. One son is a U.S.

20 citizen, and the other is an LPR.

21

55. In February 1998, the INS notified Ms. Santillan that they were placing her in

22 removal proceedings and seeking to remove her from the United States.

23

56. Ms. Santillan requested relief from removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) on the

24 basis that her then-spouse physically abused her.

25

57. Ms. Santillan submitted the required forms and fingerprints in the course of

26 applying for adjustment to LPR status.

27

58. On May 19, 2003 an Immigration Judge in San Francisco, California granted Ms.

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP AnORNFYS AT LAW PALO A! Tll

Santillan's application for adjustment to LPR status. 11.

COMPLAINT

1

59. The DHS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on

2 May 19,2003.

3

60. Ms. Santillan's immigration attorney requested that USCIS initiate ADIT

4 processing and issue her evidence of registration as an LPR. To date, the Fresno office of USCIS,

5 a sub-office of the San Francisco USCIS, has not responded to Ms. Santillan's requests.

6

61. The USCIS has not permitted Ms. Santillan to begin ADIT processing. She has

7 not received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS since her adjustment to LPR status in

8 May 2003.

9

62. Ms. Santillan applied for and was granted an Employment Authorization

10 Document ("EAD") during the pendency of her removal proceedings. The EAD expired on

11 August 25, 2003. She tried to renew her EAD, but in January 2004, the USCIS sent her a letter

12 rejecting her application to renew. Because she is an LPR, she cannot seek extension of her EAD

13 card.

14

63. Ms. Santillan works on a seasonal basis packaging vegetables. Currently, she is

15 employed by two packaging companies. Her supervisor at one of the packaging companies

16 recently asked her for documents proving her eligibility to work. He initially rejected the Judge's

17 order as insufficient to show authorization to work. Ms. Santillan is greatly concerned that she

18 may lose one or both of her jobs if asked again by her employers to show work authorization.

19 Ms. Santillan is also fearful of being caught up in a government raid targeted at individuals who

20 are not lawfully in the United States, because she does not have proper documentation of her LPR

21 status.

22

64. As a seasonal worker, Ms. Santillan routinely has periods when she is

23 unemployed. In September 2003 and April 2004, she was denied unemployment benefits (even

24 though she was eligible to collect unemployment benefits given her employment record) because

25 she could not prove she was authorized to work based on her LPR status. This denial of

26 unemployment benefits created a substantial hardship for her.

27

65. Ms. Santillan would like to visit her mother, who is 85 years old, in Mexico.

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTdRNHS AT LAW PALl) Al.TO

Without evidence of LPR registration from USCIS, she is unable to do so because she may be

12.

COMPLAINT

1 unable to re-enter the United States.

2 B.
3

Flora Carolina Rodriguez Santillan 66. Flora Carolina Rodriguez Santillan is a native of Mexico and has been living in

4 the United States for almost 20 years. She currently lives in Merced, California with her lawful

5 resident husband and U.S. citizen son.

6

67. In February 1998, the INS served Ms. Rodriguez with a notice that the agency

7 was initiating removal proceedings against her.

8

68. Ms. Rodriguez requested adjustment to LPR status under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2),

9 based on the fact that her father, an LPR, physically abused her mother and mentally abused her.

10

69. Ms. Rodriguez submitted the required forms and fingerprints in the course of

11 applying for adjustment to LPR status.

12

70. On May 19,2003, an Immigration Judge in San Francisco, California granted Ms.

13 Rodriguez's application for adjustment to LPR status.

14

71. The DHS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on

15 May 19,2003.

16

72. Ms. Rodriguez's immigration attorney requested that USCIS initiate ADIT

17 processing and issue evidence of her registration as an LPR. To date, the Fresno office of the

18 USCIS, which is a sub-office of San Francisco USCIS, has not responded to her requests.

19

73. The USCIS has not permitted Ms. Rodriguez to begin ADIT processing. She has

20 not received any evidence of her LPR status from the USCIS since her adjustment to LPR status

21 in May 2003.

22

74. Ms. Rodriguez applied for and was granted an EAD during the pendency of her

23 removal proceedings. The EAD expired on August 25,2003. She tried to renew her EAD, but in

24 January 2004, the USCIS sent her a letter rejecting her application to renew. Because she is an

25 LPR, she cannot seek extension of her EAD card.

26

75. In September 2003, Ms. Rodriguez was dismissed from her employment with a

27 major retail chain. Ms. Rodriguez had been employed by the retailer for more than five years.

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAlO ALTO

Most recently, she had been working as a cashier, and she was about to be promoted to a more

13.

COMPLAINT

1 senior position.

2

76. The retailer terminated Ms. Rodriguez's employment because she could not prove

3 that she was authorized to work in the United States. Ms. Rodriguez provided her supervisor a

4 copy of the Immigration Judge's May 19, 2003 order granting her LPR status. However, her

5 employer would not accept the order as proof of Ms. Rodriguez's authorization to work.

6

77. The retailer allowed Ms. Rodriguez six months to present evidence that she was

7 lawfully in the United States and was authorized to work. If Ms. Rodriguez had presented

8 evidence of registration as an LPR within six months, she would have retained her job and her

9 seniority. However, because Defendants refused to allow her to begin ADIT processing and

10 failed to provide her with any evidence of registration as an LPR, Ms. Rodriguez lost her job, her

11 health benefits and other benefits associated with her seniority.

12

78. Ms. Rodriguez has secured employment with another company. However, she

13 has been asked to present proof of work authorization. She is concerned that her new employer

14 also will not accept the Immigration Judge's order and that she will be terminated.

15 c.
16

Jaime Aurelio Rodriguez Santillan 79. Jaime Aurelio Rodriguez Santillan is a native of Mexico and has been living in the

17 United States for almost 20 years. He currently lives in Merced, California with his mother, who

18 is an LPR.

19

80. In February 1998, the INS served him with a notice that the agency was initiating

20 removal proceedings against him.

21

81. Mr. Rodriguez requested adjustment to LPR status under 8 U.S.c. § 1229b(b)(2),

22 based on the fact that his father, an LPR, physically abused his mother.

23

82. Mr. Rodriguez submitted the required forms and fingerprints in the course of

24 applying for adjustment to LPR status.

25

83. On May 19, 2003, an Immigration Judge in San Francisco, California granted Mr.

26 Rodriguez's application for adjustment to LPR status.

27

84. The DHS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAL(1 ALTO

May 19,2003.

14.

COMPLAINT

1

85. Mr. Rodriguez's immigration attorney requested that USCIS initiate ADIT

2 processing and issue evidence of his registration as an LPR. To date, the Fresno office of the

3 USCIS, which is a sub-office of San Francisco USCIS, has not responded to Mr. Rodriguez's

4 requests.

5

86. The USCIS has not permitted Mr. Rodriguez to begin ADIT processing. He has

6 not received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS since he was granted adjustment to LPR

7 status in May 2003.

8

87. Mr. Rodriguez applied for and was granted an EAD during the pendency of the

9 removal proceedings. The EAD expired on August 25, 2003. He tried to renew his EAD, but in

10 January 2004, the USCIS sent him a letter rejecting his application to renew. Because he is an

11 LPR, he cannot seek extension of his EAD card.

12

88. Mr. Rodriguez is currently employed. He is concerned that, if requested to

13 present evidence of employment eligibility, he will not be able to do so and his employment may

14 be terminated.

15 D. Angela DeSouza

16

89. Angela DeSouza was born in Mexico. She is married to a U.S. citizen. Ms.

17 DeSouza and her husband reside in Elgin, Illinois.

18

90. On May 19, 1998, the INS served Ms. DeSouza with a notice that the agency was

19 initiating removal proceedings against her.

20

91. Ms. DeSouza requested adjustment to LPR status based on her marriage to a U.S.

21 citizen.

22

92. Ms. DeSouza submitted the required forms and fingerprints in the course of

23 applying for adjustment to LPR status.

24

93. On September 12, 2003, an Immigration Judge in Chicago, Illinois granted Ms.

25 DeSouza's application for adjustment to LPR status.

26

94. The DHS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on

27 September 12,2003.

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

95. In December 2003, Ms. DeSouza's immigration attorney requested that USCIS

15.

COMPLAINT

1 initiate ADIT processing and issue her evidence of her registration as an LPR. Ms. DeSouza has

2 also twice gone to USCIS specifically to request a temporary 1-551 stamp on her passport

3 evidencing registration as a LPR. Both times, the USCIS representative refused to stamp her

4 passport. Every 90 days, her immigration attorney has sent a letter to USCIS requesting ADIT

5 processmg. The last letter was sent June 2, 2004.

6

96. The USCIS has not permitted Ms. DeSouza to begin ADIT processing. She has

7 not received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS since she was granted adjustment to

8 LPR status in September 2003.

9

97. Ms. DeSouza would like to travel to Mexico to see her grandfather and her aunt.

10 Both are very ill, and she has not seen them in 12 years. Without evidence of LPR registration

11 from USCIS, she is unable to travel to visit them because she may be unable to re-enter the

12 United States.

13 E. 14

Marcos Jose Sosa Cartagena 98. Marcos Jose Sosa Cartagena was born in Honduras. He came to the United States

15 in July 2002 and has resided continuously in the United States since that time.

16

99. Mr. Sosa Cartagena currently lives in Covina, California with his aunt, her

17 husband and their two children.

18

100. In July 2002, the INS served Mr. Sosa Cartagena with a notice that the agency

19 was placing him in removal proceedings.

20

101. Mr. Sosa Cartagena applied for adjustment of status as a special immigrant

21 juvenile based on his condition as a minor in need oflong-term foster care due to abuse, neglect

22 or abandonment, and the fact that removal to his home country was not in his best interest.

23

102. Mr. Sosa Cartagena submitted the required forms and fingerprints in the course of

24 applying for adjustment to LPR status.

25

103. On December 8, 2003, an Immigration Judge in Los Angeles, California granted

26 Mr. Sosa Cartagena's application for adjustment to LPR status.

27

104. The DHS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on

28 December 8, 2003.

COOLEY GOmVARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAlO At TO

16.

COMPLAI;'llT

1

105. Mr. Sosa Cartagena's immigration attorney has requested that USCIS initiate

2 ADIT processing and issue him evidence of his registration as an LPR on three separate

3 occasions: January 8, 2004, March 1,2004, and May 15,2004. To date, Los Angeles USCIS has

4 not taken any action on Mr. Sosa Cartagena's requests.

5

106. Mr. Sosa Cartagena has not been permitted to begin ADIT processing. He has not

6 received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS since his adjustment to LPR status in

7 December 2003.

8

107. Mr. Sosa Cartagena wishes to attend community college in a program that would

9 allow him to obtain his high school diploma. The lack of documentary proof of his registration as

10 an LPR has prevented him from enrolling in Mt. San Antonio Community College in West

11 Covina, California. He is not able to obtain in-state tuition rates without proof of his LPR status,

12 and he cannot afford out-of-state tuition.

13

108. Mr. Sosa Cartagena is an orphan and needs to work to support himself. In May of

14 2004, he tried to get a job, but the prospective employer told him that he could not be hired

15 because he did not have documentation that he is authorized to work. Without documentation of

16 his LPR status, he cannot obtain lawful employment.

17

109. In the area where Mr. Sosa Cartagena lives, the US. Immigration and Customs

18 Enforcement officials frequently conduct raids to gather and deport individuals who are not

19 lawfully in the United States. Mr. Sosa Cartagena is very concerned that he will be caught up in

20 one of those raids and mistakenly deported, because he does not have evidence of registration as

21 an LPR.

22 F.
23

Ziber Ismaili 110. Mr. Ismaili was born in Macedonia. He came to the United States in March 1996

24 and has resided continuously in the United States since that time. He currently lives in Wisconsin

25 Rapids, Wisconsin with his wife and stepdaughter, who are US. citizens.

26

111. In March 1996, the INS served Mr. Ismaili with a notice that the agency was

27 initiating deportation proceedings against him.

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO A!TO

112. Mr. Ismaili requested adjustment to LPR status based on his marriage to a US.

17.

COMPLAINT

1 citizen.

2

113. Mr. Ismaili submitted the required forms and fingerprints III the course of

3 applying for adjustment to LPR status.

4

114. On July 23, 2003, an Immigration Judge III Chicago, Illinois granted his

5 application for adjustment to LPR status.

6

115. The DHS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on

7 July 23, 2003.

8

116. Mr. Ismaili has made several attempts in person and in writing to obtain evidence

9 of registration as an LPR. On November 3, 2003, he and his attorney went to the Chicago office

10 of the USCIS and was told that his file was being transferred to the USCIS office in Milwaukee,

11 Wisconsin. He then went to the Milwaukee USCIS office to register as an LPR. The Milwaukee

12 USCIS office refused to begin ADIT processing and refused to issue him documents proving his

13 LPR status. The Milwaukee USCIS office told Mr. Ismaili that his file was still at the USCIS

14 office in Chicago.

15

117. On December 31, 2003, Mr. Ismaili filed a written request with the Chicago

16 USCIS adjudications supervisor. On March 5, 2004, he filed a second written request with the

17 Chicago USCIS adjudications supervisor. To date the USCIS has taken no action on Mr.

18 Ismaili's request for ADIT processing and has not issued evidence of registration as an LPR.

19

118. Mr. Ismaili has not been permitted to begin ADIT processing. He has not

20 received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS since he was granted adjustment to LPR

21 status in July 2003.

22

119. Mr. Ismaili had an EAD, but it expired on March 26, 2004. He and his wife own

23 a restaurant. He is concerned that, without documentation evidencing his LPR status, he may

24 have problems filing his taxes.

25

120. Mr. Ismaili is prevented from traveling to Macedonia to see his family due to his

26 lack of proof of his LPR status. Mr. Ismaili's ten-year-old daughter still lives in Macedonia. His

27 mother has been taking care of his daughter, but his mother is elderly and now very ill. She

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO AI TO

recently suffered a stroke and a heart attack, but Mr. Ismaili was unable to travel to Macedonia to

18.

COMPLAINT

1 visit her. He has not seen his mother or his daughter in eight years. His mother is now too sick to

2 take care of his daughter. He urgently wishes to travel to Macedonia to see his mother and to

3 make arrangements for someone else to care for his daughter until she is able to come to the

4 United States to be with him. Without evidence of LPR registration from USCIS, he is unable to

5 do so because he may be unable to re-enter the United States.

6 G. 7

Anita Lashrey 121. Ms. Lasbrey was born in Nigeria. She came to the United States in 1988 and has

8 resided continuously in the United States since that time. She currently lives in Bronx, New

9 York with her two children, who are U.S. citizens.

10

122. On December 9, 2002, the INS served Ms. Lasbrey with a notice that the agency

11 was initiating removal proceedings against her.

12

123. Ms. Lasbrey requested cancellation of removal and adjustment to LPR status

13 based on the hardship to her U.S. citizen children.

14

·124. Ms. Lasbrey submitted the required forms and fingerprints III the course of

15 applying for adjustment to LPR status.

16

125. On July 7,2003 an Immigration Judge in New York City granted Ms. Lasbrey's

17 application for adjustment of status and accorded her LPR status.

18

126. The DHS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on

19 July 7,2003.

20

127. On November 7,2003, Ms. Lasbrey's immigration attorney requested that USCIS

21 initiate ADIT processing and issue her evidence of registration as an LPR. The New York USCIS

22 office responded by stating that it might take as long as 120 days to initiate ADIT processing.

23 Ms. Lasbrey's attorney sent additional letters on February 5, 2004 and May 13, 2004 requesting

24 ADIT processing and temporary documentation of LPR status. On February 10, 2004, Ms.

25 Lasbrey went in person to the New York USCIS office to reiterate her request, and was again told

26 to wait for USCIS to initiate the ADIT process.

27

128. Ms. Lasbrey has not been permitted to begin ADIT processing. She has not

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP AnoRNHS AT LAW PA!oAuo

received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS in the 11 months since her adjustment to

19.

COMPLAINT

LPR status.

2

129. Ms. Lasbrey is concerned that she will be unable to obtain employment without

3 documentation of her LPR status and as a result, will find it difficult to support her two children.

4

130. Ms. Lasbrey would like a driver's license but has not attempted to obtain one,

5 because she does not have documentation of her LPR status.

6

131. Ms. Lasbrey attempted to obtain a Social Security card using the Immigration

7 Judge's order granting her LPR status, but she was told that the order was insufficient proof of

8 LPR status.

9

132. Ms. Lasbrey attends community college, but because she cannot prove her LPR

10 status, she must pay the higher foreign student tuition.

11

133. Ms. Lasbrey desires to visit her five siblings who remain in Nigeria. She has not

12 seen them in 16 years. In April 2004, her cousin was married in London and Ms. Lasbrey was

13 unable to go, because without documentation of her LPR status, she may not be able to re-enter

14 the United States.

15 H. 16

Zoila Lopez-Gonzalez 134. Zoila Lopez-Gonzalez is a native of Guatemala and has been living in the United

17 States for more than 15 years. She currently lives in Miami, Florida with her two daughters, who

18 are U.S. citizens.

19

135. In 1990, the INS served Ms. Lopez with a notice that the agency was initiating

20 deportation proceedings against her.

21

136. Ms. Lopez requested relief from removal based on a special rule of cancellation of

22 removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L.

23 No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, tit. II, Div. A (Nov. 19,1997), as amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139,

24 111 Stat. 2644 (Dec. 2, 1997) § 203. Ms. Lopez submitted the necessary forms and her

25 fingerprints during the process.

26

137. On October 20, 2003, an Immigration Judge in Miami, Florida granted her

27 application for cancellation of removal and accorded Ms. Lopez LPR status.

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAl,(' At Tt'

138. The DHS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on

20.

COMPLAINT

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATT(1RNf-'h AT LAW PALO At TO

October 20, 2003. 139. Ms. Lopez waited several months for receipt of her temporary evidence of lawful
status. 140. On or about March 10,2004, Ms. Lopez went to the Miami office of the USCIS to
inquire about her Permanent Resident Card. A USCIS official advised Ms. Lopez that she would have to wait six months to a year. Ms. Lopez then presented the Immigration Judge's October 20, 2003 order and requested an 1-551 stamp on her passport. The USCIS official responded that he could not stamp Ms. Lopez's passport with an 1-551 stamp, despite the Immigration Judge's order.
141. Ms. Lopez has not been permitted to begin ADIT processmg. She has not received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS in the eight months since she was granted adjustment to LPR status.
142. Ms. Lopez applied for and was granted an EAD during the pendency of her removal proceedings. The EAD was issued on June 4, 2003, and expired on June 3, 2004. Because she is an LPR, she cannot seek extension of her EAD card.
143. Ms. Lopez is currently working. However, she is very concerned that she may lose her job ifher employer requests updated verification of her employment eligibility.
144. Ms. Lopez had a driver's license, but it expired when her EAD expired on June 3, 2004, and she was only able to get a 30 day extension on the license. Ms. Lopez is very upset about the expiration of her driver's license, because she relies heavily on her car. Ms. Lopez needs a driver's license to drive to work, to drive her daughters to school, and to drive to English classes.
145. Ms. Lopez desires to visit her family members in Guatemala. She last saw five of her siblings, who live in Guatemala, almost 19 years ago. Without evidence of LPR registration from USCIS, she is unable to travel to Guatemala, because she may be unable to re-enter the United States.

I. Rafaela Valdez Parra 146. Rafaela Valdez Parra was born in Sinaloa, Mexico. She came to the United States

2l.

COMPLAINT

1 in October 1988 and has resided continuously in the United States since that time.

2

147. Ms. Valdez currently lives in San Jose, California with her husband and five U.S.

3 citizen children.

4

148. On March 26,2002, the INS served Ms. Valdez with a notice that the agency was

5 initiating removal proceedings against her.

6

149. Because of the hardship her U.S. citizen children would suffer, she requested

7 adjustment to LPR status. Ms. Valdez submitted the required fonns and fingerprints in the course

8 of applying for adjustment to LPR status.

9

150. On May 21, 2003 an Immigration Judge in San Francisco, California granted her

10 application for adjustment to LPR status.

11

151. The DRS did not appeal the Immigration Judge's order and the order became final

12 30 days later.

13

152. On June 1, 2003, Ms. Valdez' immigration attorney requested that the San

14 Francisco office of the USCIS schedule her for ADIT processing and issue her evidence of

15 registration as an LPR. To date, San Francisco USCIS has taken no action on her request.

16

153. Ms. Valdez has not been pennitted to begin ADIT processing. She has not

17 received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS in the year since she was granted

18 adjustment to LPR status.

19

154. Ms. Valdez' EAD expired in May 2003. Because she is an LPR, she cannot seek

20 extension of her EAD card.

21

155. Ms. Valdez is currently seeking employment. She is worried that she will not be

22 able to obtain employment because she does not have proper documentation of her LPR status.

23

156. Ms. Valdez wishes to travel to Mexico to visit her parents and seven brothers

24 whom she has not seen in over ten years. Without evidence of LPR registration from USCIS, she

25 is unable to do so because she may be unable to re-enter the United States.

26 J.
27

Maria Valda Mohamad 157. Maria Valda Mohamad is a native of Brazil and has been living in the United

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORl'.!'YS AT LAW PAIP AITP

States for almost 17 years. She currently lives in Temecula, California (Riverside County) with

22.

COMPLAINT

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
ATTORNI-Y,> AT LAW PAl" AlTO

her U.S. citizen daughter. 158. In September 1998, the INS began removal proceedings against her. 159. Ms. Valda requested adjustment to LPR status under 8 U.S.c. § 1229(b)(I) based
on the hardship to her youngest daughter. 160. Ms. Valda submitted the required fonns and fingerprints in the course of applying
for adjustment to LPR status. 161. On January 7,2003, an Immigration Judge in Los Angeles, California granted her
application for cancellation of removal and accorded Ms. Valda LPR status. 162. The INS waived appeal of the Immigration Judge's order, which became final on
January 7, 2003. 163. From January 2003 until May 2003, Ms. Valda waited for the INS or the USCIS
to send her documentation of her LPR status, or to instruct her as to how to proceed to become registered as an LPR.
164. When she had not received any communication about her registration as an LPR by May 2003, Ms. Valda's immigration attorney requested that USCIS initiate ADIT processing and issue evidence of registration as an LPR. Her immigration attorney faxed letters to Los Angeles USCIS with such requests on May 7, 2003, and again on June 7, 2003. Ms. Valda has gone to the Los Angeles USCIS office in person twice to ask about her pennanent resident card. The first time was in May 2004. She went to the Los Angeles USCIS office again on June 3, 2004, and was told that background checks were being perfonned, which would take another three months.
165. Ms. Valda has not been pennitted to begin ADIT processing. She has not received any evidence of LPR status from the USCIS in the 17 months since her adjustment to LPR status.
166. Ms. Valda applied for and was granted an EAD during the pendency of her removal proceedings. The EAD expired on February 25, 2003. Because she is an LPR, she cannot seek extension of her EAD card.
167. Currently, Ms. Valda cannot work because she lacks proof of her LPR status and

23.

COMPLAINT

1 authorization to work. On or about June 4, 2004, she went to a staffing agency, seeking

2 employment. She presented the Immigration Judge's order to the representative at the staffing

3 agency. However, the representative told her that they could not staff her because she did not

4 have proof of employment eligibility. She has received similar responses from three other

5 staffing agencies.

6

168. Ms. Valda desperately wants to work to provide for her youngest daughter and

7 herself. She also desires to secure health insurance and her own housing. However, she is unable 8 to secure employment for lack of documentation of her LPR status. In March 2003, because she

9 was unable to work and unable to support herself and her youngest daughter, Ms. Valda and her

10 youngest daughter were forced to move in with Ms. Valda's oldest daughter and son-in-law. Ms.

11 Valda is deeply ashamed that she must rely financially on her daughter.

12

169. Ms. Valda desires to travel to Brazil to see her mother and seven of her sisters.

13 Her mother is 81 years old and is very ill. She has not seen her mother for more than ten years

14 and would like to see her before she passes away. Without evidence of LPR registration from

15 USCIS, she is unable to do so because she may be unable to re-enter the United States.

16

VIII. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

17

170. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs bring

18 this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals. The plaintiff-class

19 consists of:

20

All persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status

21

by the EOIR, through the Immigration Courts or the Board ofImmigration

22

Appeals of the United States, and to whom USCIS has failed to issue

23

evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident.

24

171. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The

25 number of individuals who have been granted relief from deportation fluctuates, as immigration

26 courts nationwide continually grant LPR status and cancellation of removal. The class numbers

27 also vary due to issuance of documentation to some LPRs. Therefore, although the number of

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATToRNEY~ AT LAW PAlO ALTO

class members is not known with precision, the class is believed to number in the thousands,

24.

COMPLAINT

1 based on figures reported in the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration

2 Review FY 2003 Statistical Year Book.

3

172. Moreover, class members may reside anywhere in the United States. The

4 resultant difficulties in contacting and communicating with members of the class make joinder of

5 all class members impractical.

6

173. The named Plaintiffs and class members share common questions of law and fact.

7 Common questions of law include whether USCIS has violated its duty to issue evidence of

8 registration as an LPR to individuals granted such status in removal proceedings. The policies

9 and procedures of the USCIS in relation to issuance of temporary and permanent documentation

10 to individuals granted LPR status in removal proceedings constitute common questions of fact.

11

174. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs

12 know of no conflict between their interests and those of the class they seek to represent. In

13 defending their own rights, the individual Plaintiffs will defend the rights of all proposed class

14 members.

15

175. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the class.

16

176. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to each member of the

17 class insofar as they have failed to provide to class members adequate documentation of their

18 LPR status.

19 B. 20

Factual Allegations Common to the Class 177. A class of persons similarly situated to Plaintiffs was placed In removal

21 proceedings by Defendants.

22

178. Class members applied for relief from deportation or removal. Pursuant to federal

23 regulations, they submitted the proper forms, evidence, and fees.

24

179. Prior to the final hearing on their applications for relief, the USCIS fingerprinted

25 class members, and FBI checks revealed no arrests and no other derogatory information that

26 prevented adjusting their status to LPRs.

27

180. At a later date, the Immigration Court conducted a hearing on each class

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNrYS AT LAW PAIUALTO

member's request for relief from deportation or removal. Defendants had the opportunity to

25.

COMPLAINT

1 challenge or oppose the request.

2

181. The Immigration Court granted each class member's request for relief from

3 deportation or removal. Defendants had the right to appeal the decision of the Immigration Court

4 but did not appeal. The Immigration Court's order consequently became final.

5

182. After obtaining relief from deportation or removal, class members sought to

6 register as LPRs with the USCIS. Class members sought to initiate ADIT processing and to

7 obtain evidence of registration, such as the temporary 1-551 stamp and Permanent Resident Cards.

8

183. The USCIS rejected class members' request for evidence of registration as LPRs.

9

184. The USCIS has failed to issue any evidence of registration as LPRs to class

10 members over lengthy periods of time. Among the representative Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have

11 awaited evidence of registration for six to 17 months. In most cases, USCIS has not initiated

12 ADIT processing. Class members, though vested with the rights of LPRs by law, have been

13 without documentary proof of their LPR status during these prolonged waiting periods.

14

185. The lack of evidence of registration of LPR status in the United States has caused

15 great hardship to class members.

16

186. Class members have encountered problems securing or retaining employment,

17 because they cannot demonstrate their eligibility for employment in the United States.

18

187. Class members have been prevented from obtaining unemployment and other

19 government benefits, because they cannot demonstrate that they are LPRs.

20

188. Class members have been unable to enjoy the benefits of in-state tuition in state

21 colleges, because they cannot demonstrate that they are LPRs.

22

189. Class members have been unable to obtain driver's licenses and Social Security

23 cards, because they cannot demonstrate that they are LPRs.

24

190. Class members are unable to travel outside the United States, because they lack

25 documentation to re-enter the United States.

26

191. Class members fear being detained or deported by law enforcement officials

27 because class members cannot demonstrate that they are LPRs.

28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP AnnRNEYs AT LAW PALO ALTn

26.

COMPLAINT

1

IX. CAUSES OF ACTION

2

First Cause of Action

(Violation of Fifth Amendment) 3

4

192. Petitioners hereby incorporate the information in paragraphs 1 through 191 above

5 as if fully set forth herein.

6

193. Defendants' refusal to issue class members evidence of registration as LPRs

7 constitutes a violation of procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the u.S.

8 Constitution.

9

194. Defendants' refusal to issue class members evidence of registration as LPRs also

10 violates substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution.

11

Second Cause of Action

12

(Violation of Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.c. §§ 701 et seq.)

13

195. Petitioners hereby incorporate the information in paragraphs 1 through 194 above

14 as if fully set forth herein.

15

196. Defendants, specifically the USCIS acting under the authority of the Attorney

16 General and the Secretary for the DHS, have a clear ministerial duty to issue evidence of

17 registration to LPRs as prescribed by the INA. 8 U.S.c. §§ 1302, 1304(d).

18

197. Class members have no alternative remedy when Defendants refuse to issue class

19 members evidence of registration as LPRs.

20

198. Defendants' refusal to issue class members evidence of registration as LPRs

21 constitutes violations of the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706.

22

Third Cause of Action

23

(Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361)

24

199. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 198 above

25 as if fully set forth herein.

26

200. As an alternative basis for jurisdiction and compelling government officials to act,

27
28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

Plaintiffs rely on the Mandamus Act. 28 U.S.c. § 136l. Mandamus relief is appropriate in this

27.

COMPLAINT

1 case, where Defendants owe a clear non-discretionary duty to Plaintiff class members to issue

2 documentation evidencing LPR status, and Defendants have been derelict in this duty.

3

Fourth Cause of Action

4

(Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 V.S.c. § 2201)

5

201. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 200 above

6 as if fully set forth herein.

7

202. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants' actions are unlawful and constitute

8 violations of legal duties that Defendants owe to Plaintiffs under the Immigration and

9 Naturalization Act.

10

Fifth Cause of Action

11

(Equal Access to Justice Act)

12

203. Petitioners hereby incorporate the information in paragraphs 1 through 202 above

13 as if fully set forth herein.

14

204. If they prevail, Petitioners will seek attorney's fees and costs under the Equal

15 Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), as amended 5 U.S.c. § 504 and 28 U.S.c. § 2412.

16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectively ask the Court to:

18

1.

Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

19

2. Certify a class of all persons who were or will be granted legal permanent resident

20 status in removal proceedings in the United States and to whom USCIS has failed to issue

21 evidence of registration as an LPR;

22

3. Declare that Defendants' policies, practices and customs, which deprive Plaintiffs

23 and class members of evidence of their LPR status in the United States, violate the U.S.

24 Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of

25 1986, and the Administrative Procedures Act.

26

4. Enjoin Defendants from denying Plaintiffs and class members temporary or

27
28
COOLEY GODWARD LLP ArrOR!\iFYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

permanent documentary evidence of their LPR status in the United States;
5. Order Defendants to issue Plaintiffs and class members evidence of registration as

28.

COMPLAINT

1 LPRs in a prompt manner, no more than 14 days after final grant ofLPR status;

2

6. Award Plaintiffs' counsel reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and

3

7. Grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

4

5 Dated: July 6, 2004 6 7

Respectfully submitted, COOLEY GODWARD LLP

8

J C. Dwyer Gdwyer@co

0)

9

Maureen P. Alger (malger@cooley.com)

Michelle S. Rhyu (mrhyu@cooley.com)

10

Reuben H. Chen (rchen@cooley.com)

11

LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

UNDER LAW OF TEXAS

12

Javier N. Maldonado

Gmaldonado@txlawyerscommittee.org)

13

David A. Armendariz

(darmendariz@txlawyerscommittee.org) 14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

Santillan et al.

16

17

677599 v8/PA

18

#$%708 !.DOC

19

20

21
22

23

24

25

26
27
28
COOLEY GomVARD LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

29.

COMPLAINT

 
 Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 157 Filed 01/30/2006 Page 1 of 2

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9 MARIA SANTILLAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
10 Plaintiffs,
11 v.
12 ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of
13 the Department of Homeland Security; THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
14 SERVICES (USCIS); EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., USCIS Director; DAVID STILL, USCIS San Francisco
15 District Director,

No. C 04-02686 MHP
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Re: Judgment

16

Defendants.

17

18

19

Plaintiffs Maria Santillan, et al. represent a class of persons who have been or will be granted

20 lawful permanent resident status by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration

21 Review and to whom the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has failed to issue

22 evidence of status as a lawful permanent resident. On December 22, 2005 this court entered a

23 permanent injunction requiring defendants to commence timely processing of plaintiffs’ status

24 documentation. Santillan v. Gonzales, No. C 04-02686 MHP, 2005 WL 3542661 (N.D. Cal. Dec.

25 22, 2005). Now before the court is plaintiffs’ request for entry of a final judgment pursuant to

26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

27

28

1

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 157 Filed 01/30/2006 Page 2 of 2

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

Having reviewed the current posture of the lawsuit and record before the court, the court

2 concludes that it is not necessary to enter a final judgment at this time. The harm which is the

3 subject of this lawsuit is ongoing, and the absence of a final judgment will not impair the parties’ 4 legal rights. Plaintiffs’ request for entry of judgment is therefore DENIED.

5

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7

8

9 Date: January 30, 2006
10
11
12

________________________
MARILYN HALL PATEL United States District Judge Northern District of California

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 388 F.Supp.2d 1065 (2005)
Maria SANTILLAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., USCIS Director; David Still, USCIS San Francisco
District Director, Defendants.
No. C 04-2686 MHP.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
August 24, 2005.
106678 *1066 *1067 *1068 David Anton Armendariz, Javier Nyrup Maldonado, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of Texas, San Antonio, TX, John C. Dwyer, Maureen P. Alger, Michelle S. Rhyu, Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Cooley Godward LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Edward A. Olsen, United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, Elizabeth J. Stevens, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATEL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Maria Santillan, et al. represent a class of persons who have been or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the Justice Department's Executive Office of Immigration Review and to whom the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has failed to issue evidence of status as a lawful permanent resident. Following this court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment that defendants' failure to issue evidence of status violates the Administrative Procedure Act (hereinafter "APA") and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Defendants have cross-moved for summary judgment that the claims of certain class members are nonjusticiable, and that defendants' failure to issue evidence of status is lawful and reasonable. Having considered the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, the court issues the following order.
1069 *1069 BACKGROUND
Named plaintiffs Maria Santillan, et al., were granted the status of lawful permanent resident ("LPR") by Immigration Judges or by the Board of Immigration Appeals, constituent courts of the Justice Department's Executive Office of Immigration Review ("EOIR").[1] Following the EOIR's determination, plaintiffs sought documentation of their adjusted status as LPRs from their local United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") sub-office, through a process called Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication ("ADIT") processing.[2]
Prior to September 11, 2001, plaintiffs would generally have been able to obtain temporary documentation of their adjusted status within a week of presenting a copy of the order issued by the EOIR to their local USCIS suboffice. Statement of Undisputed Facts (hereinafter "SUF") ¶ 17; see Chen Dec. Ex. I at 28:22-29:14. Beginning some time after September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), which oversees USCIS, changed the policy for applicants for documentation. Under the new policy, all applicants for documentation of adjusted status have been required to undergo background and security checks involving multiple federal agencies. SUF ¶ 24; see Aug. 9, 2004 Sposato Dec. ¶¶ 1-9. Until those checks are completed, the USCIS has not been permitted to issue any immigration benefit to plaintiffs, such as adjustment of status to lawful permanent

residency or the issuance of temporary documentation verifying LPR status. SUF ¶ 23; see Aug. 9, 2004 Sposato Dec. ¶ ¶ 11-12.
Under these new procedures, persons granted LPR status waited from several months to over one year for the commencement of their ADIT processing, in addition to weeks or months for the completion of processing and the issuance of documentation verifying LPR status. SUF ¶ 32. As many as 12,539 persons adjudicated to be LPRs after October 1, 2000 may not have received documentation of status from USCIS. SUF ¶¶ 64-65. During the post-adjudication, pre-documentation period, some class members lost work and travel authorization due to the expiration of their former immigration status, the refusal of agencies to renew work authorizations due to the immigrants' adjustment to LPR status, and lack of documentation of their new LPR status. SUF ¶¶ 51-55, 67, 70, 96-98, 100.
On July 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to compel defendant officials to issue LPRs evidence of their adjusted legal status "in a timely manner." On October 12, 2004, this court certified plaintiffs' claims as a class action. See Santillan v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2297990 (Oct. 12, 2004 N.D.Cal.) (Patel, J.).
On April 1, 2005 after class certification in this action, a new system of EOIR regulations went into effect which reorganized the procedures governing security and law enforcement investigations of putative class members in 1070 several ways. Most significantly, the new regulations repositioned *1070 the timing of security examinations of applicants, requiring those examinations to be completed before an alien's application for adjustment of status can be heard by an immigration judge, rather than after a grant of adjusted status. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47.
Specifically, the new regulations change the timing, notice, and allocation of responsibility for security checks. At the front end, at any hearing in which an alien files or expresses intent to file an application for relief that is subject to background checks, the "DHS shall notify the respondent of the need to provide biometrics and other biographical information and shall provide a biometrics notice and instructions to the respondent for such procedures." Id. § 1003.47(d). Immigration judges are instructed to account for security processing in scheduling hearings, and security checks must be conducted "as promptly as is practicable (considering, among other things, increased demands placed upon such investigations)." Id. § 1003.47(e). Where investigations are incomplete by the time of the hearing, the immigration judge may grant a continuance or hear the case on the merits; however, the judge may not grant an application for immigration relief if the examinations are incomplete or not current. Id. § 1003.47(f)-(g). See also Id. § 1003.1 (instructing that the Board of Immigration Appeals shall not issue a decision affirming or granting an alien an immigration status, benefit, or relief that requires completion of security investigations if such investigations have not been completed during the proceedings, the results of prior investigations are no longer current, or investigations have uncovered any information bearing on the merits of the alien's application). Where an investigation is complete and an immigration judge has granted LPR status, the "decision granting such relief shall include advice that the respondent will need to contact an appropriate office of DHS." Id. § 1003.47(i). The new regulatory scheme affects only EOIR processes, with no instructions or guidelines for USCIS issuance of documentation.
Defendants moved to dismiss in light of the new regulations, arguing that the claims of plaintiffs adjusted by the EOIR after April 1, 2005 ("post-April 1 plaintiffs") are either moot or not yet ripe, and that the class of plaintiffs adjusted by the EOIR before April 1, 2005 ("pre-April 1 plaintiffs") is rapidly shrinking and will disappear without the intervention of this court. On July 1, 2005 this court denied defendants' motion. See Santillan v. Ashcroft, No. C 04-2686 (N.D.Cal. July 1, 2005) (Patel, J.). In denying defendants' motion this court noted that the ripeness requirement does not provide the proper framework in which to analyze the justiciability of the claims of the postApril 1 plaintiffs. Rather, the proper question was whether the change in regulations on April 1 rendered the claims of certain class members moot. This court concluded that the post-April 1 plaintiffs are likely to experience delays related to the same internal communication difficulties and other bureaucratic inefficiencies that have affected the pre-April 1 plaintiffs, and that their claims are therefore not moot. Finally, this court noted that the April 1, 2005 change in regulations might require dividing the existing class into two subclasses.
In the Statement of Undisputed Facts accompanying these motions for summary judgment, the parties list the following facts relevant to the post-April 1 plaintiffs. First, some of the delay experienced by pre-April 1 plaintiffs is

attributable to misrouted files, inefficiency, and human error. SUF ¶ 43. USCIS makes use of the same types of 1071 files and procedures in processing the applications of at least some post-April 1 plaintiffs. SUF ¶ 44. *1071
USCIS does not ensure that the applications of post-April 1 plaintiffs are processed within a prescribed period of time. SUF ¶ 45. Nor does USCIS track the number of times a post-April 1 plaintiff makes requests for documentation. SUF ¶¶ 40-42. Finally, the security checks that were previously done following determination of status, and on which USCIS places much of the blame for delays experienced by pre-April 1 plaintiffs, usually take no more than 48 hours to complete. SUF ¶¶ 27-28.
Based on the continued failure of pre-April 1 class members to obtain documentation and evidence that administrative delays will persist for post-April 1 class members, plaintiffs move for summary judgment that defendants are improperly withholding permanent documentation of status, and that Defendants' decision to cease providing temporary documentation was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants move for summary judgment that the DHS is not in violation of its duty to provide documentation, and that the decision to cease issuing temporary documentation was rational. Defendants also argue in the alternative, as in their earlier motion to dismiss, that the claims of the post-April 1 class members are not yet ripe.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. The moving party for summary judgment bears the burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). On an issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id.
Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (e). Mere allegations or denials do not defeat a moving party's allegations. Id.; Gasaway v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1994). The court may not make credibility determinations, and inferences to be drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 520, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
The moving party may "move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the party's favor upon all or any part thereof." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
II. Subclass Certification
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4)(B), a class may be divided into subclasses when appropriate. A 1072 court may certify subclasses after initial class *1072 certification. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(C). A court may divide a
class into subclasses on motion of either party, or sua sponte. Burka v. New York City Transit Authority, 110 F.R.D. 595, 603-04 (S.D.N.Y.1986).
III. Mootness
The jurisdiction of federal courts depends on the existence of a "case or controversy" under Article III of the Constitution. PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir.1996). "A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy." American Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir.1997) (citing American Tunaboat Ass'n v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir.1995)). "In the context of

declaratory and injunctive relief, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate that she has suffered or is threatened with a concrete and particularized legal harm, coupled with a sufficient likelihood that she will again be wronged in a similar way." Bird v. Lewis & Clark College, 303 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 923, 123 S.Ct. 1583, 155 L.Ed.2d 314. Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred and the courts "cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot." Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978). "The burden of demonstrating mootness is a heavy one." Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir.1988).
A defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not render a case moot unless the party asserting mootness meets the "heavy burden" of showing that it is "absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." See Students for a Conservative America v. Greenwood, 378 F.3d 1129, 1131, amended by 391 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)). The standard for assessing voluntary cessation is "stringent." Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 189, 120 S.Ct. 693.
IV. Ripeness
"Ripeness doctrine protects against premature adjudication of suits in which declaratory relief is sought," Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), in order to prevent "entanglement in theoretical or abstract disagreements that do not yet have a concrete impact on the parties." 18 Unnamed "John Smith" Prisoners v. Meese, 871 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir.1989). The ripeness inquiry contains both a constitutional and a prudential component. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). Ripeness is evaluated at the commencement of a lawsuit, and is not subsequently defeated through changed circumstances. Malama Makua v. Rumsfeld, 136 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1161 (D.Haw.2001).
V. APA
A. Jurisdiction under the APA
The APA provides for judicial review where "[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute." 5 U.S.C. § 702. "` [A]gency action' includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act." 5 U.S.C. § 551(13).
B. APA Section 706(2)(A)
Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), a court shall hold unlawful agency actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 1073 discretion, *1073 or otherwise not in accordance with law." When an agency acts either to create or rescind a
regulation, it must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
A reviewing court must consider the administrative record before the agency at the time the agency carried out the action. National Wildlife Federation v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 384 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir.2004) .
C. APA Section 706(1)
Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), a court "shall ... compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." The elements of a claim under § 706(1) are a discrete, ministerial duty; a delay in carrying out that duty; and a determination that the delay was unlawful or unreasonable in light of prejudice to one of the parties. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 2378-80, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004); Rockbridge v. Lincoln, 449 F.2d 567, 569-73 (9th Cir.1971).
The Ninth Circuit has adopted a six-factor test for determining when an administrative delay is unreasonable.
(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a "rule of reason";

(2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason;
(3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake;
(4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority;
(5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and
(6) the court need not find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.
Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C.Cir.1984) ("TRAC"); Brower v. Evans, 257 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2001) (utilizing the TRAC considerations to evaluate the reasonableness of agency delay).
DISCUSSION
Before reaching the merits of the parties' dispositive arguments, this court must first resolve three preliminary questions. First, the court must determine if, in light of the April 1, 2005 changes to EOIR regulations, the existing certified class should be divided into two subclasses. Second, defendants renew in their motion for summary judgment the argument that the claims of class members adjudicated by the EOIR after April 1, 2005 are not yet ripe. Third, defendants move for additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) in order to respond to certain affidavits included by plaintiffs with their motion.
I. Subclass Certification for Pre 0907 and Post-April 1, 2005 Plaintiffs
At the conclusion of the order denying defendants' motion to dismiss, this court noted that it would consider dividing the certified class into two subclasses distinguished on the basis of the class members' date of EOIR 1074 adjudication (i.e., a pre-April 1, 2005 subclass and a post-April *1074 1, 2005 subclass). The court finds that the change in regulations on April 1 and differences in the factual record for pre 0907 and post-April 1 class members weigh in favor of dividing the existing class into two subclasses.
Under the post-April 1, 2005 regulations, an immigration judge will not hear an alien's application for LPR status until the judge receives confirmation that security checks for the class member are complete and up to date. In addition, immigration judges and the BIA are not able to grant or affirm LPR status if the security checks have uncovered information bearing on the merits of the alien's application. As a result, all class members adjudicated to be LPRs under the post-April 1, 2005 regulations have already been determined, to the extent possible, not to be a security risk. In contrast, class members processed under the pre-April 1, 2005 regulations may not have completed security checks prior to being granted LPR status. This distinction has bearing on defendants' national security arguments, which have substantially less merit when applied to an LPR already determined not to be a known threat.
The undisputed factual record is also different for pre 0907 and post-April 1 class members in significant ways. Defendants have stipulated that up to 12,359 members of the pre-April 1 group still await permanent documentation, but have made no such stipulation for the post-April 1 subclass. SUF ¶ 65. Defendants have also stipulated that some pre-April 1 class members have waited more than a year following their EOIR adjudication without receiving evidence of status. SUF § 32. Defendants have made no such stipulation with respect to postApril 1 class members; nor could defendants do so, as the time elapsed since the new regulations went into effect is less than five months. Based on these differences in the factual record and the effect of the new regulations on the parties' legal arguments, the court finds that the class should be divided into two subclasses.
The first subclass (the "pre-April 1 subclass") consists of all those persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the EOIR under regulations in effect prior to April 1, 2005 through the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals of the United states, and to whom USCIS has failed to issue

evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. United States Attorney General, No. 04-CV-21685 (S.D. Fla.) and the plaintiff class in Padilla v. Ridge, No. M 03-126 (S.D.Tex.).
The second subclass (the "post-April 1 subclass") is identical to the first subclass, with the sole difference that the persons in the second subclass were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the EOIR under regulations in effect on April 1, 2005 or thereafter.
Plaintiffs have already identified at least two class members who received EOIR adjudication on or after April 1, 2005. Chen Dec. Ex. T. Defendants have noted, however, that one of the class members identified by plaintiff, adjudicated to be a LPR on April 1, 2005 was actually processed under the pre-April 1, 2005 regulations and had therefore not gone through security screening prior to adjudication. Given this court's decision to divide the class into two subclasses, plaintiffs are ordered to file a list of named members of the post-April 1 subclass, including any required disclosures, within 30 days of this order.
II. Justiciability of Post-April 1, 2005 Class Member Claims
1075 In their motion for summary judgment, defendants repeat the ripeness argument *1075 previously advanced in the context of defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants assert that their adoption of new regulations for the processing of status documentation has "de-ripened" the claims of the post-April 1 subclass.
This argument is both legally incorrect and procedurally improper. As this court has already explained, ripeness is evaluated at the commencement of each stage of litigation. None of the cases cited by defendant suggests that a claim can "de-ripen" over time. All of the cases consider precisely the opposite situation: where the passage of time during litigation has caused claims that were arguably not yet ripe when the lawsuit was filed to ripen. See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) ("the date of their all but certain exercise is now closer by several months than it was at the time the Court of Appeals ruled"); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. United Furnace Co., 876 F.2d 293, 302 (2d Cir.1989) (finding that plaintiff's claim was ripe both at the time of the district court's dismissal and on appeal). Claims do not de-ripen; they become moot.
When a defendant makes a change to the challenged practice during the course of litigation, the proper framework for analyzing the effect of that change is the "voluntary cessation" doctrine, a subspecies of mootness. This court has already ruled that defendants have failed to show that the adoption of the new regulations has "completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." See Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Labs., 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir.1998). This argument already has been put to rest. It is not an appropriate issue to revisit on summary judgment.
III. Defendants' Motion to Strike
Defendants raise a second threshold question in their separate motion to strike: whether plaintiffs can use the twenty affidavits attached as Exhibit T to the Chen Declaration in support of their motion for summary judgment. The affidavits contain statements of twenty aliens who are not named plaintiffs, but who have been adjudicated to be LPRs and had not yet received documentation of status as of the time of the affidavits. Defendants do not dispute that these affidavits are based on the "personal knowledge" of the affiants, that they set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence should the affiants testify at trial, or that the affiants are "competent to testify to the matters stated therein." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Defendants assert instead that affidavits from fact witnesses must be "tested" through deposition of those witnesses.
Defendants cite no authority establishing a per se rule that fact witnesses must be made available for deposition before their affidavits may be used in support of a motion for summary judgment. Rather, defendants claim that under Rule 56(f) they are entitled to conduct additional discovery to rebut the claims made in the new affidavits. In particular, defendants wish to determine whether the affiants in fact attempted to contact USCIS to obtain documentation, and whether the affiants otherwise complied with the registration requirements.
In order to obtain additional discovery under Rule 56(f), the non-moving party must provide affidavits establishing that facts essential to opposing the motion are "unavailable." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f); Hancock v. Montgomery Ward Long Term Disability Trust, 787 F.2d 1302, 1306 (9th Cir.1986). Defendants argue in their motion to strike and

1076 accompanying declaration that many of the named plaintiffs *1076 exacerbated the harms associated with delays in issuing documentation by failing to comply with the procedures for obtaining documentation, and that it is likely that the twenty new affiants similarly contributed to any delays they may have experienced. According to defendants, the facts surrounding each plaintiff's failure to receive documentation are essential because "[t]he legal standards for the claims of Plaintiffs under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and for a writ of mandamus all require a balancing of the actual harms suffered by class members." Defs.' Opening Brief at 5.
As an initial matter, defendants' argument does not apply to plaintiffs' claim under 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A), which pertains to the post-September 11, 2001 decision to cease issuing temporary documentation. In evaluating a claim under section 706(2)(A), this court must examine the administrative record as it existed at the time the policy change took place. National Wildlife Federation, 384 F.3d at 1170. The actual harms suffered by plaintiffs four years later, such as those alleged in plaintiffs' affidavits, are irrelevant to this examination.
With respect to plaintiffs' claim under 5 U.S.C. section 706(1), it is not clear from defendants' brief and affidavits what essential information might be obtained in additional depositions. Of the twenty new affiants, nineteen are members of the pre-April 1 subclass.[3] Defendants have already represented in the Statement of Undisputed Facts that up to 12,539 members of the pre-April 1 subclass are still awaiting documentation, and that some of the pre-April 1 subclass have waited more than a year without receiving evidence of status. SUF ¶¶ 32, 65. That plaintiffs may have contributed to delays in individual cases does not contradict or undermine the significance of either undisputed fact.
Also, for the post-April 1 subclass, plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and do not need to prove past harms for particular class members in order to prevail. Rather, plaintiffs must show "some cognizable danger of recurrent violation." United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953). Plaintiffs of course may show this by providing actual examples of post-April 1 delay. On the other hand, as already discussed in the context of this court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss, and as supported by the parties' joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, defendants have presented no evidence that many of the root causes of delay for the pre-April 1 subclass have been eliminated for the post-April 1 subclass. The April 1 regulations make no changes to the manner in which USCIS tracks the applications of LPRs or the way in which USCIS interacts with other agencies to process LPR applications for documentation.
Defendants argue that this court should be reluctant to consider granting relief on the basis of uncertain future harm to the post-April 1 subclass because of national security concerns, citing Getty Images News Servs., Corp. v. Department of Def., 193 F.Supp.2d 112, 117 (D.D.C.2002). In Getty Images, the district court considered a news organization's constitutional right to be included in unspecified future "media pools" in combat zones. Id. at 113-14. The court concluded that it could not adjudicate "hypothetical disputes in which the specifics of the 1077 challenged policies, the relevant factual context, and even the identify *1077 [sic] of the injured plaintiff are a matter of conjecture." Id. at 118. Defendants do not explain how Getty Images is applicable here, where the challenged policies are well-defined, the factual context 0907 delay in issuing documentation 0907 is sufficiently specified, and the plaintiffs are identified by way of the class definition.
Defendants have failed to meet their burden under Rule 56(f) in yet another way. To prove that information is unavailable, the non-moving party must at least show what efforts it made to obtain the information and why those efforts were unsuccessful. Mason Tenders Dist. Council Pension Fund v. Messera, 958 F.Supp. 869, 894-95 (S.D.N.Y.1997). It is undisputed that defendants do not maintain systematic records of each attempt an alien makes to obtain documentation. SUF ¶¶ 40-42. Defendants certainly have access, however, to whatever records exist for the contested affiants and could produce whatever relevant information is contained in their files. At a minimum, defendants could determine whether now, over four months after the last of the affiants was granted LPR status, the affiants have received temporary or permanent documentation. Defendants have not done so. Nor have defendants presented other evidence that might call the affidavits into question, such as evidence that bureaucratic delays in processing have decreased following the April 1 change in regulations. As defendants apparently already have access to information that would allow defendants to oppose plaintiffs' motion, it is not clear that further discovery is warranted. See Mason Tenders, 958 F.Supp. at 895 ("Relief under

Rule 56(f) is not appropriate where the discovery allegedly desired pertains to information already available to the non-moving party") (internal quotations omitted).
In order to provide defendants with every reasonable opportunity to oppose plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment under section 706(1), the court will permit defendants to file, within 30 days of this order, additional affidavits in support of their Rule 56(f) motion. The affidavits should first describe the efforts defendants have made to obtain the information by other means, such as consulting the files for the affiants, and explain why sufficient information is not available that would permit defendants to oppose plaintiffs' motion. The affidavits should then clearly set forth the specific facts that defendants hope to obtain in deposition and the reason that the additional facts would preclude summary judgment with respect to either subclass. If defendants carry their burden under Rule 56(f), the court will revisit its ruling with respect to plaintiffs' claim under section 706(1).
Having resolved these preliminary questions, the court now turns to the substance of the cross-motions for summary judgment.
IV. APA Claims
Plaintiffs assert two violations of the APA that would permit a judicial remedy under 5 U.S.C. section 702. First, plaintiffs claim that defendants' decision following September 11, 2001 to cease issuing temporary documentation was arbitrary and capricious, and not supported by an adequate administrative record, in violation of section 706(2)(A). Second, plaintiffs claim that defendants have a purely ministerial duty to issue documentation of LPR status following a determination by the EOIR and that DHS has no authority to make an independent determination of eligibility. Defendants' delay in issuing documentation is therefore allegedly unlawful or unreasonable, in violation of section 706(1).
1078 Defendants argue that the decision to cease issuing temporary documentation *1078 following September 11, 2001 was rational and grounded in sound policy choices. Defendants also assert that USCIS does not have a ministerial duty to issue documentation of LPR status, but rather has broad discretion in deciding when and if to issue documentation. In the alternative, defendants argue that even if USCIS has a duty to issue documentation promptly, any delays faced by plaintiffs are reasonable in light of national security concerns.
A. Decision to Cease Issuing Temporary Status Documentation
Defendants have provided no contemporaneous record of the facts and analysis supporting the post-September 11 decision to cease issuing temporary documentation. The only evidence of contemporaneous analysis discussed in the parties' motions is as follows. First, defendants conducted a "small study internally about the security checks that had been performed in certain cases coming from immigration courts." SUF ¶ 19. Second, defendants engaged a contractor to conduct a "larger study about various aspects of security checking, but that study did not particularly relate to cases coming from immigration court." SUF ¶ 20. Third, defendants "made multiple attempts to collect information about the results of security checks." SUF ¶ 21. Defendants have not provided any of the results of these studies or investigations for review. Id.
Without the ability to examine the studies cited by defendants in order to determine whether they support the post-September 11 policy change, this court is unable to conclude that the policy change had any rational basis. The fact that defendants now argue, in the context of litigation, that national security concerns justified the change in policy is irrelevant, as a reviewing court must look to the administrative record at the time the change was made. See National Wildlife Federation, 384 F.3d at 1170. Similarly, citations to the 9/11 Commission report, published in 2004, have no bearing on a rule created over two years earlier.
Even if defendants were correct in arguing that a rationale crafted during litigation can be used to justify an earlier rule change, or in the event that defendants choose to issue new regulations, the national security justification as stated does not support a blanket policy of withholding temporary documentation from all EOIR-adjusted LPRs. First, defendants have not established any actual connection between EOIR-adjusted LPRs and threats to national security. Defendants are unable or unwilling to identify a single EOIR-adjusted LPR who has been identified as a possible national security threat, much less one who has been detained or deported as a result of

security concerns. SUF ¶¶ 30, 46. Moreover, the EOIR has already thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence presented by the alien and by DHS before granting LPR status to each class member.[4] SUF ¶¶ 4-5.
Second, defendants offer no reasonable justification for prolonged delays in the security checking process in the majority of cases, which would provide some reason for withholding temporary documentation. USCIS currently 1079 performs two security checks for each alien who applies for LPR status.[5] SUF ¶ 24. The first, an FBI *1079 fingerprint check, is generally completed in 48 hours or less, unless the check yields some potentially incriminating information. SUF ¶ 27. The second, an "IBIS check," may be performed in less than ten minutes, unless the check yields some potentially incriminating information. SUF ¶ 28. Defendants have presented no evidence and made no argument that the particular LPRs awaiting processing are delayed because of information uncovered through the security checks.
Third, defendants do not adequately consider alternate mechanisms for addressing national security objectives in the immigration process. It is imperative that administrative agencies explain possible alternatives and give adequate reasons for rejecting them. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 48, 103 S.Ct. 2856. The DHS has many options for limiting the freedom of individuals determined to present a threat. The DHS exercises substantial control over the EOIR proceedings themselves; the DHS may move to reopen decisions to grant LPR status, appeal an immigration judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, or ask to have the case referred to the Attorney General for final review SUF ¶¶ 8-9. After exhausting any administrative appeals, the DHS may pursue collateral attacks on the administrative decision, such as initiating new removal proceedings or seeking to have the earlier proceedings reconsidered, reopened, or rescinded. SUF ¶ 11. Finally, the DHS may detain noncitizens who have been identified as a threat. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(3).
Defendants argue that the process for rescission, revocation, or termination can be prolonged for several months or years, during which time the LPR may enjoy the benefits of documentation, such as the right to work or travel internationally. Id. This argument is flawed for several reasons. LPRs identified for possible removal are nonetheless entitled to documentation; defendants are required to provide documentation to LPRs during deportation proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 264.5(g); § 1.1(p) (LPR status "terminates upon entry of a final administrative order of exclusion, deportation, or removal"). If the DHS has reasonable grounds to believe that a LPR is engaged in an "activity that endangers the national security of the United States," it may detain the LPR. 8 U.S.C. § 1226a(a)(3). Defendants object to detaining LPRs who are subsequently determined to be a threat due to the "problem that such an individual would not be subject to detention, and (under Plaintiffs' scheme) would be in possession of LPR documentation, until he or she was actually determined to pose a danger to the United States." Far from being a "problem," requiring a specific justification before depriving a qualified alien of the rights to work and travel is precisely what is lacking in the blanket deprivation that defendants have established.
Fourth, defendants' concern about issuing documentation prior to conducting security checks does not apply to members of the post-April 1, 2005 subclass. Under the April 1 regulations, the EOIR may not grant LPR status until the required checks are completed and up-to-date. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.47(f)-(g), 1003.1. Any alien adjudicated to be a LPR in the post-April 1 regime is therefore already deemed not to be not a threat as determined by defendants' choice of background checks.[6]
Fifth, it is far from clear that defendants' security checks are useful in detecting potential threats to national 1080 security. *1080 By defendants' own admission at oral argument, the procedures challenged in this action would
not have caught a single September 11 hijacker. Also, in arguing that the security screening previously performed by the EOIR was inadequate, defendants disparage the EOIR's reliance on the FBI fingerprint check 0907 the very same check USCIS now employs to screen LPRs 0907 as "feckless" because "al Qaeda selected young mujahideen with clean records to avoid raising alerts during travel." Defs.' Opening Brief at 14; SUF ¶ 108.
Sixth, even assuming that defendants' security checks identify potential terrorists, it is unclear on this record that depriving aliens already present in the United States of status documentation furthers national security interests. As defendants acknowledge, having status documentation is a prerequisite for lawfully obtaining employment. SUF ¶ 48. To the extent that plaintiffs constitute a "shadow population, whose affiliations, associates, and indeed very identities were unknown," as defendants allege, forcing plaintiffs to obtain illegal employment delays the point at which plaintiffs can emerge from those shadows. Also, denying status documentation affects an alien's

right to travel only in a very limited way 0907 preventing the alien from reentering the United States following travel abroad. Defendants have articulated no reason why this type of travel, as opposed to the domestic air travel exploited on September 11, 2001, presents a threat to national security.
Administrative agencies such as USCIS must explain and justify their actions in order to permit meaningful checks on executive power. "Expert discretion is the lifeblood of the administrative process, but unless we make the requirements for administrative action strict and demanding, expertise, the strength of modem government, can become a monster which rules with no practical limits on its discretion." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 48, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (quoting New York v. United States, 342 U.S. 882, 884, 72 S.Ct. 152, 96 L.Ed. 662). It is "obvious and unarguable" that national security is of paramount importance, see Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 509, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964), and it is equally obvious that the agencies entrusted with preserving that security should take great pains to make rational use of their limited resources. Defendants' repeated, conclusory appeals to national security concerns do not withstand careful scrutiny and leave this court with no basis for concluding that the post-September 11 policy rationally furthers national security interests. This court concludes that the rule change was "arbitrary and capricious" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. section 706(2) (A).
B. Failure to Issue Permanent Status Documentation
Plaintiffs also contend that defendants have a purely ministerial duty to provide documentation after the EOIR has made a final determination of LPR status, and that defendants may not independently decide to hold up individual files for additional review. Defendants argue that 8 U.S.C. section 1304(d) gives USCIS absolute discretion in deciding when to issue documentation, and that there is no requirement for USCIS to provide the documents to LPRs within a reasonable period of time. In the alternative, USCIS argues that regardless of the statutory or regulatory allocation of authority, USCIS has discretion to withhold documentation in order to protect national security interests.
1. Duty to Issue Documentation
This court disagrees with defendants' position that section 1304(d) gives USCIS unfettered discretion as to when 1081 it *1081 issues documentation of status. Section 1304(d) provides, in relevant part, that LPRs who have been
registered and fingerprinted "shall be issued 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." It is settled law that USCIS must issue status documentation in response to the EOIR's determination of eligibility and cannot substitute its decision for that of the immigration judge. Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 231 F.3d 984, 988 (5th Cir.2000) ("federal law guarantees LPR's certain rights of documentation they can use to prove, to potential employers and others, their right to be in the United States"); Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433, 1444 (2d Cir.1991) ("The INA mandates that the Attorney General provide LPRs who register with proof of their legal status").
Defendants rely heavily on the last clause of section 1304(d), which provides that the Attorney General may regulate the "time" and "manner" of issuing documentation, in arguing that USCIS has no duty to provide documentation within a reasonable period of time. See Loa-Herrera, 231 F.3d at 988 (how the right to documentation is protected in practice is within the "express discretion of the Attorney General"). No previous case squarely addresses the Attorney General's discretion with respect to timing. Both Etuk and Loa-Herrera, however, suggest that any such discretion is limited by the need to preserve the rights guaranteed to LPRs.
In Etuk, the Second Circuit held that certain forms of temporary documentation issued by the INS, the predecessor of USCIS, were inadequate to protect the rights guaranteed to LPRs. Etuk, 936 F.2d at 1443. The temporary documentation in question contained language suggesting that the holder's employment authorization was temporally restricted. Id. at 1445. LPRs in possession of the temporary documentation therefore had difficulty obtaining permanent employment. Id. The INS argued that it was not required to issue documentation that demonstrated employment authorization. Id. at 1444. The court disagreed, noting that LPRs enjoy "enhanced" rights. Id. at 1443. "While we think the Executive still enjoys discretion when dealing with these individuals, we believe that the exercise of that discretion is subject to more intense judicial scrutiny." Id. at 1443-44.

Loa-Herrera is not to the contrary. The Fifth Circuit in Loa-Herrera, as the court in Etuk, considered the form of documentation that the Attorney General is required to provide. The court concluded that the Attorney General was bound by existing regulations to issue a particular form 0907 form I-551 0907 and did not consider any limits on the Attorney General's ability to create new regulations that provided for different forms. Loa-Herrera, 231 F.3d at 989 . In reaching this holding, however, the court cited Etuk for the proposition that the INA "mandates that the Attorney General provide LPRs who register with proof of their legal status." Id. at 988 n. 8.
Defendants seek to distinguish Etuk in part based on the time it was decided 0907 in 1991, prior to September 11, 2001 0907 arguing that the concerns raised in Etuk were different and "less portentous" than those that exist today. To the extent this argument has merit, it relates not to the existence of the duty to provide documentation, which flows from a statutory scheme that is unchanged in relevant part since 1991, but rather to the reasonableness of any deviation from that duty. The reasonableness of USCIS's withholding documentation is discussed below.
1082 *1082 The court concludes that USCIS has a duty to provide documentation to LPRs at a time that does not unreasonably compromise the LPRs' enhanced rights.
2. Breach of Duty
The facts and arguments surrounding defendants' breach of the duty to issue documentation are distinct for the pre-April 1 subclass and the post-April 1 subclass. This court will consider each subclass in turn.
a. Pre-April 1 Subclass
Plaintiffs and defendants agree that many members of the pre-April 1 subclass continue to await documentation of their status. Although proof of LPR status for the named plaintiffs was expedited upon the commencement of this lawsuit, up to 12,539 other LPR class members still awaiting documentation have no such source of special help. SUF ¶ 65. These unnamed plaintiffs face the same lack of responsiveness from USCIS, bureaucratic confusion and misplacement of files, and long delays for security checks that once affected the named plaintiffs. SUF ¶ 9. Given that the named pre-April 1, 2005 plaintiffs waited sixteen months on average from the date of their EOIR order, the delay faced by the rest of the subclass members may stretch into multiple years without court intervention. See Chen Dec., Exh. I at 163:5-166:10, 169:11-171:2; Exh. D at 3:2-5.
Based on the preceding undisputed facts, this court therefore finds that no material dispute exists that defendants are in breach of their duty to provide timely documentation of status with respect to the pre-April 1 subclass.
b. Post-April 1 Subclass
Defendants argue that plaintiffs have pointed out only one instance of a post-April 1, 2005 class member experiencing delays, and thus have not carried their burden of demonstrating the likelihood of future harm for members of the post-April 1 subclass. Based on the present undisputed record, this court disagrees.[7] Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence of bureaucratic delays in the processing of applications which are unrelated to security checks, and defendants acknowledge that the same administrative regime that gave rise to these delays remains in place today. The new regulations fail to address any objectives or procedures for accountability in LPR documentation, set a time frame for processing proof of status, or target the USCIS, the actor ultimately responsible for issuing LPR documentation. See generally 70 Fed.Reg. 4743; 8 C.F.R. § 1003; 8 C.F.R. § 1208. With this in mind, the court finds it implausible that a system which was uncoordinated and overwhelmed before the new policy can possibly be rid of all obstructions on April 1, 2005.
Several factors other than the time required to conduct security checks delayed the issuing of status documentation under the pre-April 1 regime. For instance, plaintiffs who had already been cleared by security checks before their LPR adjudication still waited up to twenty-two months before receiving proof of their LPR status. SUF ¶ 34. Ineffective interagency communication within the DHS also contributed to delayed documentation. USCIS Deputy Associate Director of Operations Janis Sposato testified that "the first and maybe 1083 longest delay" was between the grant of the immigration benefit and USCIS notice of the grant, and that she *1083 "wouldn't be surprised" if files were lost, misplaced, or sent to the wrong location. May 4, 2005 Sposato

Dep. at 55:7 0907 10; 59:9 0907 60:2. Despite acknowledging these gaping holes in the system, defendants represent these "administrative mistakes" as ongoing and offer no proposals for rectifying them.
In contrast, the amount of time required to conduct security checks is small in most cases. It is undisputed that security checks usually take 48 hours or less unless potential incriminating information is found. SUF ¶¶ 27 0907 28. Defendants have presented no evidence and made no argument that the members of the pre-April 1 subclass were delayed as a result of the time required to investigate such information. Indeed, defendants have not identified a single EOIR-adjusted LPR who is a potential danger to national to security or public safety. SUF ¶¶ 26, 30.
Moreover, the new policies have created additional reasons for delay. Newly adjudicated LPRs are not permitted to schedule the first available appointment to initiate documentation if appointments at the USCIS sub-office are fully booked for the two-week window permitted for scheduling. SUF ¶ 57; May 4, 2005 Sposato Dep. at 66:2 0907 68:18; May 23, 2005 Sposato Dec. ¶ 4 (stating that appointments are available in the "overwhelming majority" of USCIS districts, but noting that some districts continue to experience appointment capacity challenges that the department is struggling to correct). Thus, an LPR must return to the USCIS office every day until an appointment within the next two week period opens for processing, with no limit to the number of times an individual must return to the office before actually obtaining an appointment. May 4, 2005 Sposato Dep. at 66:11 0907 19. USCIS acknowledges that it has no mechanism for tracking the number of times a LPR requests documentation. SUF ¶ 42. Based on the currently undisputed evidence of ongoing bureaucratic difficulties, the court concludes that no reasonable dispute exists that there is "some cognizable danger of recurrent violation" with respect to the postApril 1 subclass W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633, 73 S.Ct. 894.
3. Reasonableness of Delay
Defendants' final argument, vigorously contested by plaintiff, is that national security concerns justify any delay in issuing documentation. The force of defendants' argument is different in the pre-April 1 and post-April 1 regimes. The court will therefore consider them separately.
i. Pre-April 1 Subclass
The Ninth Circuit analyzes the reasonableness of agency delay under the so-called "TRAC factors." See Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir.1997). Under the first two TRAC factors, agencies are permitted a "reasonable" time to carry out their duties. Id. What is reasonable depends on the statutory context. Id.
As already discussed, defendants note that 8 U.S.C. section 1304(d) grants the Attorney General authority to create regulations as to the form and timing of documentation that is issued; defendants argue that this language gives the Attorney General broad discretion in withholding evidence of status. Plaintiffs argue in response that related statutes demonstrate an intent for documentation to be issued quickly. For example, LPRs are required to carry proof of status with them at all times. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e); Etuk, 936 F.2d at 1444. LPRs are not authorized to obtain employment unless they present documentation of status. SUF ¶ 48. Moreover, the benefits of LPR 1084 status vest in full on the date of the EOIR's order granting status. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(3), *1084 1255(b). The court finds that the statutory importance of documentation and the immediate vesting of rights weigh in favor or prompt issuance that does not unreasonably compromise LPRs' rights. See Part IV.B.1, supra.
The third and fifth TRAC factors provide that a reviewing court should take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay, and that delays affecting "human health and welfare" are less tolerable than those affecting economic regulation. Independence Mining Co., 105 F.3d at 509. Here, where the failure to present documentation precludes lawful employment and obtaining certain state benefits, the effect on the welfare of plaintiffs is obvious and undisputed.[8]
Finally, the fourth and sixth TRAC factors provide that a reviewing court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority, but that the agency need not be deliberately or improperly withholding benefits in order for the delay to be unreasonable. Id. at 510. Defendants' sole

justification for the delay in issuing documentation for class members is the need to review each LPR's background to safeguard national security.
Defendants cite several cases in support of their argument that national security concerns trump all others in this case. See Halperin v. Kissinger, 807 F.2d 180, 187 (D.C.Cir.1986) (stating that "the concept of a special rule for national security matters, such as reduced due process requirements," is "no stranger to court-made law"). See also Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 309, 101 S.Ct. 2766, 69 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (holding that an individual posing a substantial likelihood of "serious damage" to national security authorizes the government to revoke the citizen's passport); Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536, 547, 76 S.Ct. 861, 100 L.Ed. 1396 (1956) (noting the "obvious justification" for summary suspension power where an employee occupies a "sensitive" position in which he could cause serious damage to national security).
Unlike the cases cited in Halperin, there is no individual showing in this case that class members pose a serious risk to national security or that defendants' policies further national security interests. See Part IV.A, supra. Absent any such particularized showing, defendants' national security argument cannot excuse the various permutations of bureaucratic errors, administrative backlogs, and inter-agency communication lapses that have caused the delays at issue in this lawsuit. Accordingly, this court finds that defendants' delay in issuing documentation of status to members of the pre April 1, subclass is unreasonable under section 706(1).
ii. Post-April 1 Subclass
The statutory mandate and the harms to plaintiffs are identical with respect to the post-April 1 subclass. As discussed in Part IV.B.2.b, supra, defendants have not yet produced facts demonstrating that delays under the post-April 1 regulations are likely to subsist.
Defendants' arguments relating to national security have no force when applied to post-April 1 class members. Due to defendants' new policy of holding up EOIR adjudication until all security checks have been completed, 1085 defendants have ensured that any class member adjusted after April *1085 1 will already have been deemed not to present a risk to national security, to the extent possible using defendants' chosen security checks. This court therefore finds that defendants' delay in issuing documentation of status to members of the post-April 1 subclass is also unreasonable under section 706(1).
V. Due Process Claims
As plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their APA claims, this court will not reach plaintiffs' claims that defendants' failure to issue documentation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
VI. Remedy
"A court, where it finds unlawful agency behavior, may tailor its remedy to the occasion." N.A.A.C.P. v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Dev., 817 F.2d 149, 160 (1st Cir.1987); see also Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364, 373, 59 S.Ct. 301, 83 L.Ed. 221 (1939) ("while the court must act within the bounds of the statute and without intruding upon the administrative province, it may adjust its relief to the exigencies of the case in accordance with the equitable principles governing judicial action").
Other courts have ordered detailed remedies, including the imposition of concrete deadlines, in response to unlawful agency action or failures to act. Etuk (upholding an order to issue temporary documentation of status within 21 days of application); Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Brock, 823 F.2d 626, 629 (D.C.Cir.1987) (ordering OSHA to comply with a timetable for rulemaking and to issue interim progress reports). It is also settled, however, that "[t]he court should not deny itself the benefit of agency expertise in the absence of extraordinary circumstances." Cal-Almond, Inc. v. Yeutter, 756 F.Supp. 1351, 1356 (E.D.Cal.1991).
Defendants have stated in their briefs and at oral argument that they are taking steps to speed the processing of requests for documentation for the post-April 1 subclass and to complete processing of the existing backlog of pre-April 1 requests. In order to make these assurances more concrete, the court hereby orders defendants to submit, within 60 days, a proposal for timely issuing evidence of status to both subclasses. At a minimum, the proposal should include specific strategies for addressing the following points:

(1) The timing for completing security checks for pre-April 1 subclass members.
(2) The process by which pre-April 1 subclass members can request and obtain documentation following completion of the security checks.
(3) An efficient process for collecting biometric data from members of both subclasses. Ideally, for post-April 1subclass members, the collection of biometric data should occur immediately following the grant of LPR status.
(4) The mechanism for ensuring that USCIS obtains prompt notice of the EOIR's determination.
(5) The process by which post-April 1 subclass members can obtain their documentation once it has issued.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, defendants' motion to strike is DENIED, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to submit to this court and to defendants within 30 days the names and contact information of named plaintiffs for the postApril 1 subclass. Defendants are hereby ordered to submit to this court within 60 days a proposal for timely 1086 issuing evidence of status to members of both *1086 subclasses, as outlined above. Defendants are also permitted to submit to this court within 30 days additional affidavits in support of their motion under Rule 56(f).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] The present class action concerns only those aliens who are removable from the United States and placed in immigration proceedings with the constituent courts of the EOIR. Class members have been granted permanent residency as relief from removal, often referred to as a "defensive" adjustment of status. See Aug. 9, 2004 Sposato Dec. ¶ 2. The class does not encompass those persons who apply for "affirmative" adjustment of status based on a direct application to the USCIS for an immigration benefit. See id. ¶ 1.
[2] The USCIS is a division of the Department of Homeland Security (referred to herein as "DHS") which is responsible for administering immigration laws.
[3] One of the nineteen pre-April 1 affiants received adjudication on April 1, 2005, but was processed under the pre-April 1 regime.
[4] It is also apparently undisputed that the EOIR performed the FBI fingerprint check, one of the two security checks currently performed by USCIS, even prior to the April 1, 2005 change in regulations. See Defs.' Opening Brief at 14.
[5] At oral argument, defendants acknowledged that they perform a third, time-consuming FBI name check in some cases. Defendants represented, however, that they do not delay issuing documentation pending completion of this check.
[6] It is true that the background checks may expire between the EOIR adjudication and the time at which USCIS issues documentation of status. SUF ¶ 29. USCIS is no doubt capable of crafting a fair procedure for handling such a case.
[7] As discussed in Part III, supra, defendants may present by further affidavits facts creating such a dispute, as well as reasons that such facts are currently unavailable.
[8] Defendants assert that plaintiffs' interests are not compromised because certain class members have managed to remain employed despite lacking documentation of their LPR status. LPRs, however, are entitled to work lawfully. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(h)(3), 1324a(a)(1)(A). Defendants do not dispute that employers who hire individuals without documentation risk civil and criminal penalties. SUF ¶ 48.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
2004 WL 2297990 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Maria SANTILLAN, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jamie Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Ziber Ismaili, Anita
Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez–Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States; Tom Ridge, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; The United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS); Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., USCIS Director; David Still, USCIS
San Francisco District Director, Defendants.
No. C 04–2686 MHP. | Oct. 12, 2004.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David Anton Armendariz, Javier Nyrup Maldonado, San Antonio, TX, John C. Dwyer, Maureen P. Alger, Michelle S. Rhyu, Reuben Ho–Yen Chen, Cooley Godward LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Edward A. Olsen, San Francisco, CA, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
PATEL, J.
*1 Plaintiffs Maria Santillan, et al., seek certification of a class consisting of persons who have been or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review and to whom the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has failed to issue evidence of status as a lawful permanent resident. The class definition excludes those plaintiffs to other actions pending in Florida and Texas district courts. Having considered the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, the court issues the following order.
BACKGROUND

Named Plaintiffs Maria Santillan, et al., were granted the status of lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) by Immigration Judges or by the Board of Immigration Appeals, constituent courts of the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). Following the EOIR’s determination, plaintiffs sought documentation of their adjusted status as LPRs from their local U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) suboffice, through a process called Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication (“ADIT”) processing.
Under policies commenced in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, all applicants for documentation of their adjusted status through ADIT processing must undergo background and security checks involving multiple federal agencies. See Sposato Decl. ¶¶ 1–9. Until those checks are completed, the USCIS is not permitted to issue any immigration benefit to plaintiffs, such as adjustment of status to lawful permanent residency or the issuance of temporary documentation verifying LPR status. See Sposato Decl. ¶¶ 11–12.
Plaintiffs allege that under this current system, LPRs are waiting from several months to over one year for the commencement of their ADIT processing, as well as long time periods for the completion of processing and the issuance of documentation verifying LPR status. See Plaintiffs’ Exhs. A–J. They allege that during this post-adjudication, pre-documentation period, many immigrants are losing work and travel authorization due to the expiration of their former immigration status, the refusal of agencies to renew work authorizations due to the immigrants’ adjustment to LPR status, and lack of documentation of their new LPR status. See, e.g., Santillan Decl. ¶¶ 10–14; Rodriguez Santillan Decl. ¶¶ 10–13. On July 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to compel defendant officials to issue LPRs evidence of their adjusted legal status “in a timely manner.”
Since the date of filing their complaint, a period of only two and one-half months, the status of all ten originally named plaintiffs has changed. After waiting periods of 10 to 20 months, seven named plaintiffs received documentation of their lawful permanent resident status during the period of July 30, 2004 through mid-September, 2004, and the three remaining plaintiffs were summoned to commence ADIT processing. See Sposato Supplemental Decl. ¶¶ 1–2. In a separate motion pending before this court, plaintiffs have moved to add six new named plaintiffs to their complaint. See Pl.’s Mot. to for Leave Amend. According to plaintiffs, these proposed new named plaintiffs have not received or been summoned to receive documentation of their LPR status, as they remain in the middle of various stages of
1

Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
pre-ADIT or ADIT processing. Id. at 4; Exh. 1–6.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. Article III Justiciability *2 The jurisdiction of federal courts depends on the existence of a “case or controversy” under Article III of the Constitution. PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir.1996). Inquiry into a plaintiff’s standing under Article III is a jurisdictional requirement that must be satisfied prior to class certification. LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1325 (9th Cir.1985). The present motion for class certification raises questions relating to three dimensions of justiciability: standing, mootness, and ripeness. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 860 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that standing, class certification, and the scope of relief are “often intermingled”).
A. Standing Article III § 2 of the Constitution extends the judicial power of the federal courts only to cases or controversies. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Under Article III, federal courts cannot entertain a litigant’s claims unless that party has satisfied its burden to demonstrate both constitutional and prudential standing to sue. Defenders of Wildlife v. Lujan, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). To meet constitutional requirements, a plaintiff must show that (1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” which is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent”; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged actions the by defendant; and, (3) “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 560–61 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Prudential requirements for standing include: (1) whether plaintiff’s alleged injury falls within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute or constitutional provision at issue, (2) whether the complaint amounts to generalized grievances that are more appropriately resolved by the legislative and executive branches, and (3) whether the plaintiff is asserting his or her own legal rights and interests, rather than those of third parties. See Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. Bisson, 231 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.2000); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991).
B. Mootness “A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present,

live controversy.” American Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir.1997) (citing American Tunaboat Ass’n v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir.1995)). “In the context of declaratory and injunctive relief, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate that she has suffered or is threatened with a concrete and particularized legal harm, coupled with a sufficient likelihood that she will again be wronged in a similar way.” Bird v. Lewis & Clark College, 303 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 923, 123 S.Ct. 1583, 155 L.Ed.2d 314. Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred and the courts “cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978). “The burden of demonstrating mootness is a heavy one.” Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir.1988).
*3 In the class action context, the mootness of named plaintiffs does not defeat the class claims where unnamed class members continued to present justiciable claims and where the class has already been certified under Rule 23. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 52, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991). Certification itself brings unnamed class members before the court for Article III purposes, and therefore the mooting of a named plaintiff’s claims does not require dismissal. Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 399–400, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975) (holding that a mooted named plaintiff challenging a one-year residency requirement could continue to represent a certified class because “[a]lthough the controversy is no longer alive as to [named plaintiff], it remains very much alive for the class of persons she has been certified to represent” and because otherwise “the issue sought to be litigated escapes full appellate review at the behest of any single challenger”). Before class certification, however, the mootness of named class members will bar adjudication of the Rule 23 motion unless the case falls into a recognized exception to mootness doctrine, for instance where the challenged conduct is transitory. See County of Riverside, 500 U.S. at 52 (upholding a certified class despite pre-certification mootness of named plaintiffs’ claims because the “inherently transitory” nature of some claims would deny any realistic chance for class certification before proposed a representative’s personal interest would expire).
Mootness doctrine also recognizes an exception for claims which are “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Native Village of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir.1994); Wiggins v. Rushen, 760 F.2d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.1985). This exception is limited to extraordinary circumstances where two elements combine: (1) the challenged action is of limited duration, too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action
2

Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
again. Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 489–90 (9th Cir.2003); Wiggins, 760 F.2d at 1011. When resolution of a controversy depends on facts that are unique or unlikely to be repeated, the action is not capable of repetition and is moot. See PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1460 (9th Cir.1996). After certification of a class action, the second element articulated in Porter will be satisfied even where a named plaintiff may not personally be subjected to the short-duration harm again. See Sosna, 419 U.S. at 399–400 (affirming class certification where a challenged practice could not be enforced personally against named plaintiff again, but would be enforced against other class members).
C. Ripeness “Ripeness doctrine protects against premature adjudication of suits in which declaratory relief is sought,” Hodgers–Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), in order to prevent “entanglement in theoretical or abstract disagreements that do not yet have a concrete impact on the parties.” 18 Unnamed “John Smith” Prisoners v. Meese, 871 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir.1989). The ripeness inquiry contains both a constitutional and a prudential component. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).
II. Overbreadth *4 The requirements of Rule 23 protect defendants from “overbroad” class definitions. See Amchem Products, Inc., v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 560, 117 S.Ct. 2231, ––––, 138 L.Ed.2d 689, –––– (1997). Rule 23 does not, however, limit the geographic scope of a certified class. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979). A nationwide class is permissible under principles of equity because “the scope of injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the violation established, not by the geographical extent of the plaintiff class.” Id. When asked to certify a nationwide class, a district court must ensure that nationwide certification is appropriate, and that such certification would not “improperly interfere with the litigation of similar issues in other judicial contexts.” Id. Accordingly, district courts may shape the contours of a nationwide class to exclude pending cases addressing similar issues, thus avoiding interference with other courts. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873, 888 (9th Cir.2003). See also Lundquist v. Security Pac. Automotive Financial Serv. Corp., 993 F.2d 11, 14 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that a district court “is not bound by the class definition proposed in the complaint and should not dismiss the action simply because the complaint seeks to define the class too broadly”).

III. Rule 23 A party seeking to certify a class must satisfy four prerequisites enumerated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), as well as at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). The prerequisites of Rule 23(a) include: (1) numerosity (a class so large that joinder of all members is impracticable); (2) commonality (questions of law or fact common to the class); (3) typicality (named parties’ claims are typical of the class); and (4) adequacy of representation (representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class). In addition, Rule 23(b) requires a showing that the action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3). See Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs assert that this case falls within Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) permits class actions for declaratory or injunctive relief where the party opposing the class “has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class.” Rule 23(b)(2).
The party seeking relief must provide facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). In ruling on a motion to certify, the court accepts as true a plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint, as long as the court has sufficient information to form a reasonable judgment on the class certification requirements. See Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 n. 17 (9th Cir.1975) (holding that “[s]o long as [a district judge] has sufficient material before him to determine the nature of the allegations, and rule on compliance with the Rule’s requirements, and he bases his ruling on that material, his approach cannot be faulted because plaintiffs’ proof may fail at trial”). Courts may not review the merits of a case for purposes of class certification, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177–78, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974), except as necessary to perform a rigorous Rule 23 analysis. See Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 708 F.2d 475, 480 (9th Cir.1983). Rule 23 confers “broad discretion” on district courts to determine eligibility for certification and subsequently revisit that determination. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 872 n. 28 (9th Cir.2001).
DISCUSSION
I. Justiciability of Plaintiff’s Case
A. Standing *5 Named plaintiffs in the present action declare that they have been denied evidence of temporary registration pending security clearance, and that without such documentation of their adjusted status, they have not been entitled to the employment, travel, educational, and public benefits privileges granted to legal permanent residents. See Plaintiffs’ Decls., Exhs A–J. As a motion to certify a class is not a review of the substantive merits of a case, this court is not in a position to evaluate the veracity or
3

Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
scope of these injuries. See Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 n. 17 (9th Cir.1975); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177–78, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974). The declarations simply provide adequate allegations of injuries on which to base a reasonable judgment that they have personal standing to bring this case, given the direct effect of the contested government policies on plaintiffs themselves. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (holding that in suits challenging the legality of government conduct, the nature of the facts necessary to establish standing is considerably diminished if the plaintiff himself is “an object of the action ... at issue,” rather than a third party to the government action).
In order to assert claims on behalf of a class, named plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have personally sustained an injury which results from a challenged statute or government conduct. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 860 (9th Cir.2001). The Ninth Circuit has described two means of making such a demonstration: first, plaintiffs may show that defendant had a written policy sanctioning the contested conduct, or second, plaintiffs may show that the harm is part of a pattern of officially-sanctioned conduct. Id. at 861. In defendants’ opposition motion and attached declaration, the government has conceded the existence of policies and practices requiring background checks of all recently-adjusted LPRs, and they have detailed the required stages and actors involved in such clearances. See Sposato Decl. ¶¶ 1–13. Named plaintiffs, for their part, have alleged injuries which stem directly from the defendants’ policies regarding issuance of temporary documentation of status, as well as from the time required to implement the background check policies. See Plaintiffs’ Decls. A–J. The court finds that the plaintiffs have satisfied the requisite showing of an injury derived from challenged government policies and practices.
Defendants also argue that plaintiffs have exclusively alleged past harms which cannot recur. Defendants are correct that past harms, with an uncertain chance of repetition, are an inadequate basis on which to establish standing. See Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (holding that the plaintiff’s past injury did not establish a personal stake in prospective relief because he did not face an immediate threat of future injury). However, the Ninth Circuit has distinguished Lyons from cases in which a written policy or common practice ensures repetition in the future. See LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1324 (1985) (holding that the case at bar was distinct from Lyons in that the district court made a finding of “a standard pattern of officially sanctioned officer behavior”). In the present action, the existence of clear policies and practices within the Department of Homeland Security mean that unnamed and future class members will face the contested delays in the future. See Sposato Decl. ¶ 13 (describing security

clearance procedures and stating that the USCIS will “continue to perform” background checks). The present action therefore satisfies the LaDuke and Armstrong standards for establishing standing on behalf of a class. In addition, the injuries allegedly sustained by the named plaintiffs (excluding those seven plaintiffs who were recently documented as LPRs) represent a present, on-going harm rather than a “past injury” subject to the Lyons standing rule. Until they receive documentation of their status, there has been no termination of the harm and thus there is no question as to their standing to bring this case. Once a class is certified, termination of the harm for individual named plaintiffs does not defeat the standing of the class. See LaDuke, 762 F.2d at 1325 (holding that “the fact of certification will preserve a class’s standing even after the named individual representatives have lost the required personal stake”) (internal citations omitted).
*6 Subject to other justiciability concerns, the named plaintiffs have alleged adequate injury to establish standing to represent a class of similarly-situated individuals.
B. Mootness Since the filing of this case, seven named plaintiffs have received temporary or permanent documentation of LPR status after the successful completion of their background checks. See Sposato Supplemental Dec. ¶ 1. In addition, barring unforeseen clearance issues, the other three originally-named plaintiffs have been scheduled to appear to receive documentation of their adjusted LPR status following the issuance of this order. See Sposato Supplemental Dec. ¶ 2 (stating that Maria Santillan de Lopez, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, and Jaime Rodriguez Santillan are currently in the process of background and security checks). The defendants argue that the claims of these seven plaintiffs—and potentially of others as proceedings before this court advance—are now moot, rendering these named plaintiffs incapable of certification as class representatives.
There is no question that three of the ten named plaintiffs’ claims present live controversies, as per the discussion of standing above. Until receiving temporary or permanent documentation of their status as LPRs, their alleged injuries continue. For the seven named plaintiffs who have received documentation of their status, their claims have been mooted by the resolution of their conflict with defendants. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) (holding that where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred and the courts cannot undo any harm caused, the action is moot.)
Plaintiffs have asked this court to preserve all ten named plaintiffs as class representatives, applying the rule
4

Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
announced in Zeidman v. McDermott, 651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir.1981) that a motion for class certification brought before a district court need not be dismissed for mootness where defendants, perhaps strategically, have tendered resolution of individual plaintiff’s claims. Id. at 1051. The court reasoned that plaintiffs could be “picked off” before class certification, making a decision on class certification very difficult to procure. Id. at 1050. Indeed, the Supreme Court has expressed concern over a “narrow class of cases” where the ability of defendants to defeat adversity with one named plaintiff at a time would “lead to the reality that otherwise the issue would evade review.” Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 341, 100 S.Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980) (internal citations omitted).
This court declines to adopt the Zeidman rule here. The Ninth Circuit has suggested that in order to show strategic resolution of named plaintiffs’ claims in response to litigation, plaintiffs must show causation, not simply correlation, between the timing of the litigation and the timing of defendants’ resolution of the contested harm. Sze v. INS, 153 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1998). On the evidence currently before the court, plaintiffs have not demonstrated such causation, and it will not be inferred by this court.
*7 Therefore, the claims of seven named plaintiffs are deemed mooted by the issuance of documentation of LPR status in their cases. This modification in the plaintiffs’ class representation has no effect on the viability of the class as a whole. See Swisher v. Brady, 438 U.S. 204, 213, 98 S.Ct. 2699, 57 L.Ed.2d 705 (1978) (holding that a live controversy remained, and a class was properly certified, where the adversity between the defendant and all but one of the named plaintiff had been mooted). In addition, the court notes that subsequent resolution of remaining named plaintiffs’ claims following certification of this class will not moot this class action as whole. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 52, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991) (holding that the mootness of named plaintiffs does not defeat class claims where unnamed class members continued to present justiciable claims and where the class has already been certified under Rule 23).
C. Ripeness Defendants’ last justiciability argument is that the claims of unnamed future persons seeking LPR status are unripe. This argument misunderstands ripeness, an Article III doctrine concerning the timing of judicial intervention in a dispute and the appropriateness of a matter for declaratory relief. See Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 320, 111 S.Ct. 2331, 115 L.Ed.2d 288, 301 (1991). By contrast, the inclusion of unnamed class members who will be affected in the future by a challenged policy or practice is

a common characteristic of class actions seeking to curtail ongoing harms. See, e.g. I.N.S. v. Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrant Rights, 502 U.S. 183, 112 S.Ct. 551, 116 L.Ed.2d 546 (1991) (addressing the merits of a class action representing “all those persons who have been or may in the future be denied the right to work pursuant to 8 CFR § 103.6”); Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Nelson, 694 F.Supp. 864, 876–78 (S.D.Fla.1988) (granting class certification of a class of all persons who had or would for adjustment of immigration status under a particular program) aff’d by 872 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir.1989); Does 1–5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.1996) (addressing the merits of a class consisting of “[a]ll persons who are, have been, or will be identified as ‘disabled’ under Chapter 346 ...”); LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1321, 1332 (9th Cir.1985) (affirming certification of a class consisting of “[a]ll persons who have resided or will reside in particularly described farm housing ...”); Etuk v. Blackman, 748 F.Supp. 990, 994 (E.D.N.Y.1990) (certifying a class of persons “whose permanent resident cards either have been or will be confiscated by the INS ...”) aff’d in relevant part by Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433 (2nd Cir.1991).
The fact that a class will eventually encompass plaintiffs who do not currently satisfy the class definition does not defeat Article III justiciability, subject to the requirements of standing for current class members. See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 402–03, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975). To interpret the ripeness doctrine otherwise would preclude claims for injunctive relief on behalf of any “constantly changing” class, in which new plaintiffs enter the class definition by virtue of the passage of time. See Sze v. INS, 153 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir.1998) (noting the difference between a justiciable “constantly changing putative class,” in which “some members leave the class and others come in,” and a non-justiciable “constantly shrinking plaintiff class,” in which the contested procedures have been changed and no new plaintiffs are entering the class). A class may include future members as long as the court will be able to determine whether an individual is a class member at any given time. See Probe v. State Teacher’s Ret. Sys., 780 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir.1986); 5 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.31[2] (3d ed.2004). In the present action, this court can easily determine those persons who fall within the class definition, namely, persons granted LPR status by an EOIR tribunal “to whom USCIS has failed to issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident.” Ripeness therefore is not a barrier to class certification in the present action.
II. Overbreadth *8 Defendants have raised two concerns with respect to the breadth and clarity of the putative class. They argue, first of all, that class certification in the current case will
5

Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
conflict with two other pending lawsuits on similar matters: Lopez–Amor, et al. v. U.S. Attorney General, et al., No. 04–CV–21685 (S.D.Fla.) (involving 34 individual plaintiffs served by the Miami, Florida USCIS district office) and Padilla, et al. v. Ridge, et al., No. M 03–126 (S.D.Tex.) (a class action limited to persons granted LPR status by immigration courts located in Harlingen, Houston, and San Antonio, Texas). Secondly, defendants argue that the class definition is unclear on the meaning of “evidence of registration.”
Defendants express valid concern about interference with pending litigation. A district court must ensure that nationwide class certification will not interfere with litigation of similar issues elsewhere. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979). However, this concern has been addressed by a modification in the scope of the class to exclude the relatively small cluster of plaintiffs represented in Padilla and Lopez–Amor. Due to the limited geographic scope of the other cases, the modification of the class in the present action avoids potential problems of interference and overbreadth. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873, 888 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding certification of a nationwide class because the government defendant was applying its policy nationally and holding that “by defining the class to exclude pending cases, [the district court] had obviated concerns about impinging on other courts.”)
Defendants’ other argument concerning the meaning of “failure to issue registration” goes to the heart of the merits of this case, as does any determination of what would constitute “reasonable delay” in the issuance of evidence of LPR status. Plaintiffs declare that they received no documentation of their adjusted status following the EOIR’s determination in their cases. See Plaintiffs’ Decls, Exhs A–J. Failure to issue documentation pre-ADIT processing is not contested between the parties, as defendants have confirmed that the USCIS is mandated to perform background checks prior to issuance of LPR documentation after EOIR adjudication of status. Related issues remain disputed, such as the necessity of delays between adjudication to documentation of status and the ministerial obligation to provide temporary or interim documentation of status pending background checks. However, these questions are beyond the scope of the present motion to certify, going to the heart of the merits of the case and the nature of available relief. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177–78, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (holding that courts may not review the merits of a case for purposes of class certification); Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 708 F.2d 475, 480 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that investigation of substantive allegations should be limited to the analysis necessary to perform a rigorous Rule 23 analysis).

III. Rule 23(a)
A. Numerosity *9 Pursuant to Rule 23, the class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). As a general rule, classes numbering greater than 41 individuals satisfy the numerosity requirement. See 5 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.22[1] [b] (3d ed.2004). Although plaintiffs need not allege the exact number or identity of class members to satisfy the numerosity prerequisite, mere speculation as to the number of parties involved is not sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement. See Freedman v. Louisiana–Pac. Corp., 922 F.Supp. 377, 398 (D.Or.1996); 7 Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1762.
Where a class is not so numerous as to establish joinder as impracticable on its own, other factors such as “the geographical diversity of class members, the ability of individual claimants to institute separate suits, and whether injunctive or declaratory relief is sought, should be considered in determining impracticability of joinder.” Jordan v. Co. of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir.1982), vacated on other grounds by 459 U.S. 810, 103 S.Ct. 35, 74 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982). The economic and legal resources of the plaintiff class may be a factor in determining the practicality of joinder. See Sherman v. Griepentrog, 775 F.Supp. 1383, 1389 (D.Nev.1991) (holding that poor, elderly plaintiffs dispersed over a wide geographic area could not bring multiple lawsuits without great hardship). In addition, the inclusion of unknown future class members supports the impracticality of joinder. Id.
Plaintiffs have provided evidence of more than 49 removal-adjusted LPRs in five states who satisfy the putative class definition. See Bauerle Decl., Exh. K ¶ 11 (attorney declaration asserting representation of 11 immigrants satisfying the class definition); Bratton Decl., Exh. L ¶ 5 (attorney declaration asserting representation of 20 immigrants satisfying the class definition); Calero Decl., Exh. M ¶ 5 (attorney declaration asserting representation of 15 immigrants satisfying the class definition); Neugebauer Decl., Exh. N ¶ 11 (attorney declaration asserting representation of 3 immigrants satisfying the class definition); and Pradis Decl., Exh. O ¶ 5 (attorney declaration asserting representation of “several” immigrants satisfying the class definition). Plaintiffs assert that these putative class members are a minimal cross section of the nationwide class, which may exceed 20,000 based on estimates from 2003 statistics. See Department of Justice, Executive Office of Immigration Review, FY 2003 Statistical Year Book, Exh. P (documenting the number of persons grated LPR status in removal proceedings in fiscal year 2003).
Plaintiffs contend that due to the geographic diversity and
6

Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
the scale of the putative class, joinder would be impracticable. This court agrees. Defendants have acknowledged that the contested policies and procedures are national in application, and thus apply to all immigrants seeking documentation of adjusted status after adjudication by an EOIR court. See Sposato Decl. ¶¶ 2–3, ¶¶ 6–12. Indeed, based on plaintiffs’ evidence estimating the total class size, the nationwide class of affected persons must be substantial. See Westcott v. Califano, 460 F.Supp. 737, 744 (D.Mass.1978), aff’d, 443 U.S. 76, 99 S.Ct. 2655, 61 L.Ed.2d 382 (1979) (holding that a court may draw a reasonable inference of class size from the facts before it). Defendants’ contention that plaintiffs must identify the percentage of their clients who have not received timely evidence of registration is irrelevant to the court’s determination at this stage, and it contradicts defendants’ own acknowledgment of current lag times between adjudication and documentation. Furthermore, assessment of the legality or reasonableness of any given delay goes directly to the merits of this action.
*10 Plaintiffs also contend that individual class members lack the ability to institute individual actions because they tend to possess limited economic resources and fear retaliation for filing suit. See, e.g., Bauerle Decl., Exh. K ¶ 19. Limited economic resources may indeed limit the ability of class members to bring individual lawsuits and provide one factor in assessing whether joinder is impracticable. See Lynch v. Rank, 604 F.Supp. 30, aff’d, 747 F.2d 528 (9th Cir.1984). The court has no information on which to base a finding regarding the economic welfare of class members, and therefore the practicality of joinder will not be assessed on that basis. However, the court acknowledges the probability that such evidence weighs in plaintiffs’ favor under the Lynch standard.
The court thus finds that plaintiffs have satisfied their burden to show that joinder of removal-adjusted LPRs, both current and future, would be impracticable, and thus, this requirement of their Rule 23 motion is satisfied.
B. Commonality To fulfill the commonality prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(2), plaintiffs must establish that there are questions of law or fact common to the class as a whole. Rule 23(a)(2) does not mandate that each member of the class be identically situated, but only that there be substantial questions of law or fact common to all. See Harris v. Palm Spring Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 914 (9th Cir.1964). Individual variation among plaintiffs’ questions of law and fact does not defeat underlying legal commonality, because “the existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient” to satisfy Rule 23. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.1998).

In the present action, plaintiffs challenge the USCIS’s national practices following a grant of LPR status by the EOIR assert that USCIS has a duty to issue documentation evidencing that adjusted status in a timely manner. They share substantially identical questions of law, and factual differences within the class are immaterial. All of the proposed class members in this action were adjudicated to be LPRs by a court of the EOIR, either an immigration judge or the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. The fact that named plaintiffs came through the former process and not the latter is an immaterial difference, as by defendants’ description of current processes, all “defensive” adjustments of status commencing with an EOIR determination are handled the same way. See Sposato Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6–9. It is clear that all plaintiffs, whether present or future members of the class, are challenging the legality of the same government program and thus inherently share common issues. See, e.g., LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1332 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that the constitutionality of an INS procedure “plainly” created common questions of law and fact).
Defendants’ arguments against commonality turn on the merits of plaintiffs’ arguments, i.e. whether the time taken to complete background checks is “reasonable and lawful” and whether defendants are fulfilling their “duty” to issue evidence of status. However, this court again determines that the reasonableness and legality of defendants’ policies and practices are the very essence of this case, and not matters for the court on a motion for class certification.
*11 Therefore, the plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).
C. Typicality Under Rule 23(a)(3), the claims of the representative plaintiffs must be typical of the claims of the class. To be considered typical for purposes of class certification, the named plaintiffs need not have suffered an identical wrong. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.1998). Rather, the class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members. See General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). As under Rule 23(a)(2), where a plaintiff class challenges government policies or practices, named plaintiffs will be found typical of the class if they allege similar harms as the class. See, e.g., Hodgers–Durgin v. De La Vina, 165 F.3d 667, 679 (9th Cir.1999) (harms to class representatives found typical of those of other class members in case alleging unconstitutional patterns and practices by border patrol agents).
7

Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
The named plaintiffs in this action allege a range of harms relating to access to educational benefits, employment authorization, travel privileges, public benefits, and other consequences of immigration status which would be typical of any individual who has been adjudged an LPR, but lacks documentation of that status. This typicality resides equally with future members of the class, as defendants do not contest the continuation of current policies for the indefinite future. According to the defendants’ description of current polices for “defensive” adjudications of immigration status (i.e., adjudication by an EOIR tribunal), all class members must undergo a background check. See Sposato Decl. ¶¶ 1–12. Future members of the class thus will share the same questions regarding their immigration status pending the check, or the timeliness or reasonableness of delays in documentation. The absolute length of time required to complete a background check will certainly vary (for instance, because of backlogs, or because the results of a past security check of an immigrant remain current). However, these differences are immaterial for purposes of class typicality, which is concerned with the class members’ shared interests and harms. See generally General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982).
Thus, plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3).
D. Adequacy of Representation Rule 23(a)(4) dictates that the representative plaintiffs must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. To satisfy constitutional due process concerns, absent class members must be afforded adequate representation before entry of a judgment which binds them. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020 (citing Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42–43, 61 S.Ct. 115, 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940)). “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Id.
*12 This court finds no conflicts of interest between the named and absent class members, as all plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to provide documentation of status for the benefit of the entire class. The seven named plaintiffs who received documentation of their LPR status prior to commencement of this action have been eliminated as class representatives, and thus their commitment to advocating for unnamed class members is no longer at issue.
The court has confidence in the ability of both the named class members and their counsel to vigorously pursue the

present action, and thus Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied.
II. Rule 23(b) Even if a putative class of plaintiffs satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), they cannot satisfy their burden to establish that the action is maintainable as a class under Rule 23 unless they meet one of the three categories described in Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs argue that they meet the requirements of 23(b)(2).
A. Rule 23(b)(2) Rule 23(b)(2) requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). In the present action, defendants describe a set of national policies and practices in place for background and security checks prior to issuance of documentation of adjusted LPR status, and thus implicitly acknowledge a set of actions “generally applicable to the class.” See Sposato Decl. ¶¶ 1–13. Defendants’ semantic argument over whether they acted or refused to act is irrelevant; whether the challenged conduct is characterized as the failure to issue documentation (a refusal to act) or the application of security procedures prior to issuance of documentation (an action), it easily falls within the scope of Rule 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to change these national policies and practices, and thus plainly satisfy the dual requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).
CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class is GRANTED.
2) The class consists of all persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the EOIR, through the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals of the United States, and to whom USCIS has failed to issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez–Amor v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 04–CV–21685 (S.D.Fla.) and the plaintiff class in Padilla v. Ridge, No. M 03–126 (S.D.Tex.).
3) The named class representatives are: Maria Santillan, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, and Jamie Rodriguez Santillan.
4) The counsel of named plaintiffs is counsel for the class.
8

Santillan v. Ashcroft, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall confer

	  

and submit a proposed class notice in compliance with

this order within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

9

 
 Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 1592872 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Maria SANTILLAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., USCIS Director; David Still, USCIS San Francisco District Director,
Defendants.
No. C 04-2686 MHP. | July 1, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David Anton Armendariz, Javier Nyrup Maldonado, San Antonio, TX, John C. Dwyer, Maureen P. Alger, Michelle S. Rhyu, Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Cooley Godward LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Edward A. Olsen, United States Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, Elizabeth J. Stevens, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
PATEL, J.
*1 Plaintiffs Maria Santillan, et al. represent a class of persons who have been or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review and to whom the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has failed to issue evidence of status as a lawful permanent resident. Since certification of the present class, defendants have changed relevant Executive Office of Immigration Review regulations. Arguing that the new regulations render the action no longer justiciable, defendants herein move to dismiss claims by future class members with prejudice, dismiss existing class members’ claims without prejudice, and/or decertify the class. Having considered the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, the court issues the following order.

BACKGROUND Named plaintiffs Maria Santillan, et al., were granted the status of lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) by Immigration Judges or by the Board of Immigration Appeals, constituent courts of the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”).1 Following the EOIR’s determination, plaintiffs sought documentation of their adjusted status as LPRs from their local United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) sub-office, through a process called Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication (“ADIT”) processing.2 Under policies commenced in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, all applicants for documentation of adjusted status have been required to undergo background and security checks involving multiple federal agencies. See Aug. 9, 2004 Sposato Dec. ¶¶ 1-9. Until those checks are completed, the USCIS has not been permitted to issue any immigration benefit to plaintiffs, such as adjustment of status to lawful permanent residency or the issuance of temporary documentation verifying LPR status. See id. ¶¶ 11-12.

1

The present class action concerns only those aliens who

are removable from the United States and placed in

immigration proceedings with the constituent courts of

the EOIR. Class members have been granted permanent

residency as relief from removal, often referred to as a

“defensive” adjustment of status. See Aug. 9, 2004

Sposato Dec. ¶ 2. The class does not encompass those

persons who apply for “affirmative” adjustment of

status based on a direct application to the USCIS for an

immigration benefit. See id. ¶ 1.

2

The USCIS is a division of the Department of

Homeland Security (referred to herein as “DHS”)

which is responsible for administering immigration

laws.

Plaintiffs allege that under these procedures, persons granted LPR status waited from several months to over one year for the commencement of their ADIT processing, in addition to weeks or months for the completion of processing and the issuance of documentation verifying LPR status. See Pls’ Exhs. A-J. They allege that during the post-adjudication, pre-documentation period, many immigrants lost work and travel authorization due to the expiration of their former immigration status, the refusal of agencies to renew work authorizations due to the immigrants’ adjustment to LPR status, and lack of documentation of their new LPR status. On July 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to compel defendant officials to issue LPRs evidence of their adjusted legal status “in a timely manner.”
1

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

On October 12, 2004, this court certified plaintiffs’ claims as a class action. See Santillan v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2297990 (Oct. 12, 2004 N.D.Cal..) (Patel, J.). The class was defined as follows:
*2 The class consists of all persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the EOIR, through the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals of the United States, and to whom USCIS has failed to issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 04-CV-21685 (S.D.Fla.) and the plaintiff class in Padilla v. Ridge, No. M 03-126 (S.D.Tex.).3

3

The persons excluded from the class were 34 individual

plaintiffs served by the Miami, Florida USCIS district

office and persons granted LPR status by immigration

courts located in Harlingen, Houston, and San Antonio,

Texas. See Lopez-Amor, et al. v. U.S. Attorney General,

et al., No. 04-CV-21685 (S.D.Fla.); Padilla, et al. v.

Ridge, et al., No. M 03-126 (S.D.Tex.).

In the class certification order, this court considered defendants’ standing, mootness, and ripeness challenges to plaintiffs’ claims. Santillan v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2297990 (Oct. 12, 2004 N.D.Cal..) (Patel, J.). Many of the named plaintiffs had received documentation of their status within weeks of filing their complaint (after waiting months or years prior), and these persons’ claims were deemed moot. However, this court held that the remaining named plaintiffs’ claims were justiciable, and the order noted that the mooting of named plaintiffs’ individual claims after class certification would not moot the class action as a whole. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to add new named plaintiffs who had suffered long delays in documentation of adjusted status.
On April 1, 2005, a new system of EOIR regulations went into effect which reorganized the procedures governing security and law enforcement investigations of putative class members in several ways. Most significantly, the new regulations repositioned the timing of security examinations of applicants, requiring those examinations to be completed before an alien’s application for adjustment of status can be heard by an immigration judge, rather than after a grant of adjusted status. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47.
Specifically, the new regulations change the timing,

notice, and allocation of responsibility for security checks. At the front end, any hearing at which an alien files or expresses intent to file an application for relief that is subject to background checks, the “DHS shall notify the respondent of the need to provide biometrics and other biographical information and shall provide a biometrics notice and instructions to the respondent for such procedures.” 8 C .F.R. § 1003.47(d). Immigration judges are instructed to account for security processing in scheduling hearings, and security checks must be conducted “as promptly as is practicable (considering, among other things, increased demands placed upon such investigations).” Id. § 1003.47(e). Where investigations are incomplete by the time of the hearing, the immigration judge may grant a continuance or hear the case on the merits, however, the judge may not grant an application for immigration relief if the examinations are incomplete or not current. Id. § 1003.47(f)-(g). See also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (instructing that the Board of Immigration Appeals shall not issue a decision affirming or granting an alien an immigration status, benefit, or relief that requires completion of security investigations if such investigations have not been completed during the proceedings, the results of prior investigations are no longer current, or investigations have uncovered any information bearing on the merits of the alien’s application). Where an investigation is complete and an immigration judge has granted LPR status, the “decision granting such relief shall include advice that the respondent will need to contact an appropriate office of DHS.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(i). The new regulatory scheme affects only EOIR processes, with no instructions or guidelines for USCIS issuance of documentation.
*3 Defendants argue that the new regulations render the claims of any class members granted LPR status after April 1, 2005 moot or otherwise non-justiciable. For those class members deemed LPRs prior to that date, defendants argue that their claims should be dismissed without prejudice on the basis of non-justiciability, or that the class should be decertified for lack of numerosity and commonality.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. Mootness The jurisdiction of federal courts depends on the existence of a “case or controversy” under Article III of the Constitution. PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir.1996). “A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy.” American Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir.1997) (citing American Tunaboat Ass’n v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir.1995)). “In the context of declaratory and injunctive relief, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate that she has suffered or is threatened with a
2

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
concrete and particularized legal harm, coupled with a sufficient likelihood that she will again be wronged in a similar way.” Bird v. Lewis & Clark College, 303 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 923, 123 S.Ct. 1583, 155 L.Ed.2d 314. Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred and the courts “cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978). “The burden of demonstrating mootness is a heavy one.” Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir.1988).
A defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not render a case moot unless the party asserting mootness meets the “heavy burden” of showing that it is “absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” See Students for a Conservative America v. Greenwood, 378 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Friends of the Earth. Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)). The standard for assessing voluntary cessation is “stringent.” Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 189.
II. Standing Under Article III, federal courts cannot entertain a litigant’s claims unless that party demonstrates concrete injury, satisfying the burden to demonstrate both constitutional and prudential standing to sue. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). To meet constitutional requirements, a plaintiff must show that (1) he has suffered an “injury in fact” which is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent”; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged actions of the defendant; and, (3) “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 560-61 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Prudential requirements for standing include: (1) whether plaintiff’s alleged injury falls within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute or constitutional provision at issue, (2) whether the complaint amounts to generalized grievances that are more appropriately resolved by the legislative and executive branches, and (3) whether the plaintiff is asserting his or her own legal rights and interests, rather than those of third parties. See Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. Bisson, 231 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.2000); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991).

III. Ripeness *4 “Ripeness doctrine protects against premature adjudication of suits in which declaratory relief is sought,” Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), in order to prevent “entanglement in theoretical or abstract disagreements that do not yet have a concrete impact on the parties.” 18 Unnamed “John Smith” Prisoners v. Meese, 871 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir.1989). The ripeness inquiry contains both a constitutional and a prudential component. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).
DISCUSSION In their present motion, defendants repeat their mootness, standing, and ripeness challenges in the context of the DHS regulatory change, moving for dismissal of the claims of all LPRs granted status by the EOIR on or after April 1, 2005. As for the remaining members of the class granted status before the enactment of the new regulations, including named plaintiffs, defendants argue that their claims should be dismissed without prejudice as moot, or in the alternative, the class should be decertified due to the disintegration of commonality and numerosity.
I. Justiciability of Post-April 1, 2005 Class Member Claims According to defendants, the new procedures mandating completion of security screening checks prior to the issuance of documents verifying LPR status moot the heart of plaintiffs’ allegations and class cohesion and negate the standing of any class members granted LPR status after April 1, 2005. They argue that the new regulations are untested, making it mere speculation to assume future delays in the issuance of documentation and rendering this case unripe for any adjudication of plaintiffs’ causes of action. Plaintiffs argue that the change does not affect the present class action, because the complaint addresses the purely legal question of defendants’ ministerial duty to issue documentation of LPR status. In addition, plaintiffs argue that the new policies give no basis for confidence that the delays at issue in the litigation will cease.
A. Mootness Under the new regulations, defendants estimate that the time period between the grant of status and the issuance of a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) should be quite brief, simply long enough for “physical processing” of the card. With this change, defendants believe they have resolved the concerns at the heart of class certification and mooted the claims of any persons granted LPR status
3

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
after April 1, 2005. Defendants’ unilateral changes to EOIR policy trigger the application of voluntary cessation doctrine, which requires this court to evaluate the wrongs alleged in the current class action, the nature and scope of the policy change, and whether defendants have met their heavy burden to show that delays will not continue under the new policy.

1. The Wrongs Alleged by Named Plaintiffs The parties dispute the nature of the wrongs at the heart of plaintiffs’ action. Defendants argue that the new EOIR policies address post-adjudication delays caused by security checks and therefore represent a complete cessation of the aggrieved conduct. Arguing for a less restrictive vision of the scope and purpose of this lawsuit, plaintiffs invoke their own USCIS case histories and the testimony of government officials to demonstrate that factors unrelated to security clearances contributed to long delays in the issuance of documentation at USCIS.

*5 As a threshold matter, the court disagrees with defendants that the timing and procedures for security background checks are the only questions binding the class and driving this litigation. Security procedures are nowhere to be found in the class definition. The linchpin of the class definition is the fact of the failure to issue evidence of LPR status, not the precise causes of that failure. This court deemed plaintiffs’ complaint justiciable and certified the class on the basis of the shared injury of delays in documentation and the shared question of defendants’ ministerial duty.

Thus situated, the primary question before the court is whether changes to the timing of security clearances will affect many of the problems specifically identified in plaintiffs’ allegations and the submissions in the record. The case histories of several original or amended named plaintiffs indicate that factors other than the time needed for security checks contributed to delays in issuance of documentation before April 1, 2005. For example, Ziber Ismaili’s favorable FBI disposition occurred in October of 2003, but his documentation did not issue until eleven months later, in August of 2004.4 Rhyu Dec., Exh. 10 at 003203. Named plaintiffs Angela DeSousa, Jose Luis Miranda, Miroslava Hernandez, and Pablo Hernandez Cavillo, were cleared by background checks one to six months before they were adjudicated LPRs (i.e., in the same sequence as under the new system), but total delays between the grant of LPR status and issuance of documentation were 11 months in DeSousa’s case, and at least 22 months in the other three plaintiffs’ cases.5 Id. at 000317, 001476, 001669, 001673, 006108-9.

4

It was unclear to the court whether FBI disposition

dates cited in the record are the last step in the sequence

of security clearances, as plaintiffs implicitly suggest. However defendants did not dispute plaintiffs’ interpretation of the record on this point in their reply, and therefore the court assumes that these dates indeed mark the completion of defendants’ security clearance process.

5

In these plaintiffs’ cases, it is conceivable that

background checks completed one to six months prior

to adjudication were deemed stale by the EOIR or

USCIS. If this is the case, and the current system still

requires security clearances to be conducted

immediately prior to adjudication in order to qualify as

up to date, then this court has even greater grounds for

skepticism of efficiency under the new system. If

background checks must be timed for completion

within days or weeks of EOIR completion, then

briefing cycles, continuances, and other common

sources of delay in the immigration courts will

routinely cause the expiration of background checks,

creating the same inter-agency feedback loops of delay

alleged under the current system.

Poor internal communication within the complex DHS bureaucracy also appears in named plaintiffs’ records. Janis Sposato, USCIS Deputy Associate Director of Operations, acknowledged that the case files of Jose Luis Miranda, Ziber Ismaili, Zoila Lopez-Gonzalez, and Maria Valda Mohamad “reflect that they or their representatives contacted USCIS about receiving documentation prior to the filing of this lawsuit and after EOIR issued the orders resulting in their LPR status.” May 23, 2005 Sposato Second Supp. Dec. ¶ 17. Such efforts were not reflected in the files of other named plaintiffs, but the record leaves the court with little confidence about the completeness of those files. See id. ¶ 15. Counsel for named plaintiff Marcos Jose Sosa Cartegena, among those identified by defendants as having never contacted the USCIS, submitted three requests addressed to USCIS for LPR documentation, none of which were apparently retained in his USCIS file. Compare id. ¶ 15 with Rhyu Dec., Exh. 14. Cartegena waited more than a year for his LPR documentation, and, as in the case of all other named plaintiffs, he was not issued documentation of his status until shortly following the filing of this lawsuit.
Depositions of government officials in the case reveal that the time needed for the security check was not the only, or even the principal, cause of delay in the pre-April 1, 2005 process. Sposato testified that “the first and maybe longest delay” was between the grant of the immigration benefit and USCIS notice of the grant. May 4, 2005 Sposato Dep. at 55:7-10. Additional delays were caused by actually conducting the security checks, verifying that the grant had actually been made and not appealed, and delay related to taking biometric data and actually issuing
4

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

permanent documents. Id. at 55:18-56:1. Sposato testified she “wouldn’t be surprised” if files were lost, misplaced, or sent to the wrong location. Id. at 59:9-60:2. “Many times” requests for documentation were dispatched to the wrong location, and evidence in the record states that “in some cases” these errors took several years to identify and correct .6 Rhyu Dec., Exh. 15 at 011318.

6

However, on this last cause of delay and any other in

which the causes of delay are exceptional or

idiosyncratic, defendants are correct they do not

establish a system of practices and policies that this

court can evaluate in the class action context.

*6 In this court’s prior order, plaintiffs’ case was deemed justiciable and their class certified pursuant to Rule 23 on the basis of delays in documentation, regardless of the cause. However, the record indicated that the delays were primarily caused by three problems commonly faced by class members: unclear duties and bureaucratic confusion in the commencement of security checks, long delays pending security clearance itself, and bureaucratic delay or communication gaps in triggering production of documents following a completed security check. The question thus remains whether and to what extent such problems have been addressed by the new framework.

2. The Likelihood of Recurrence Under the New Regulatory Framework As a general rule, “a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” See Laidlaw, 528 U .S. at 189. However, “[a] case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Id. Defendants bear the “heavy burden” of meeting this standard. Id. The crux of plaintiffs’ opposition to the current motion to dismiss is that defendants have not satisfied their burden, because nothing in the regulatory change actually ensures that plaintiffs will receive documentation of their status within a reasonable amount of time.
Defendants argue that this court should adopt the rebuttable presumption applied in some circuits that voluntary cessation of challenged behavior will not relapse where the defendant is a government actor. See Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach, 382 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir.2004); Fed’n of Adver. Indus., Representatives v. City of Chicago, 326 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir.2003). This rule is justified by government regularity and comity. See Troiano, 82 F.3d at 1283 (justifying the rebuttable presumption in terms of the solicitude and leeway due to other government actors); Fed’n of Adver. Indus. Representatives, 326 F.3d at 929

(holding that where defendants are public officials, their acts of self-correction deserve greater stock if they appear genuine). See also United States Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10, 122 S.Ct. 431, 151 L.Ed.2d 323 (2001) (holding, outside the context of justiciability, that “a presumption of regularity attaches to the actions of Government agencies”).
Ample case law, including some of the cases applying a rebuttable presumption in voluntary cessation cases involving government actors, holds that the repeal of a specific law challenged by a plaintiff moots a case. See, e.g., Fed’n of Adver. Indus., 326 F.3d at 930; Native Village of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1510 (9th Cir.1994). As one court aptly put it, “declaratory judgment on the validity of a repealed [statute] is a textbook example of advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 1182 (10th Cir.2000) (quotations and citations omitted). In such cases, the likelihood that the government will drop the new policy and revert to its older regulations is remote, at best. Complete and tangible satisfaction of the relief sought by a plaintiff provides a similarly firm basis for deeming a case moot. For example, Troirano involved the “undisputed” satisfaction of the relief sought by plaintiffs in advance of an injunctive order, leaving no basis for the court to reasonably expect the alleged injuries to recur. See 382 F.3d at 1283 (finding the case moot where all precincts targeted for the installation of certain voting equipment had received that equipment during the litigation).
*7 By contrast, the present action does not concern the repeal of a challenged policy or the certain fulfillment of plaintiffs’ requested relief. As discussed in greater detail below, the case involves changes in policy which affect one significant cause of plaintiffs’ alleged injury. The specific relief requested in the amended complaint remains available and unaffected by the change in policy, including: (1) declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of defendants’ policies and practices under the Fifth Amendment due process clause, (2) an injunction to prevent defendants from withholding documentation from class members based on defendants’ assessment of background check results, and (3) an injunction ordering defendants to issue class members evidence of LPR status no more than 14 days after the final grant of LPR status. Pls’ Opp’n at 14. Such relief has not been provided and remains a viable option for resolution of class claims.
Furthermore, even if the rebuttable presumption would be appropriate in this case under the law of the Eleventh or Seventh Circuits, application herein would need to account for two Ninth Circuit principles binding this court. First of all, Ninth Circuit precedent has rejected findings of mootness in cases involving the voluntary cessation of
5

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
challenged conduct by government actors where “[d]efendants have neither asserted nor demonstrated that they will never resume [the challenged conduct] nor have they offered any reason why they might not return in the future to their original views on the utility of [the challenged conduct]”). See Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that a voluntary change in policy by a public actor did not moot the plaintiffs’ claims); Olagues v. Russoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 794-95 (9th Cir.1985) (holding the United States Attorney to a “heavy burden” of showing that the challenged conduct had been “completely and irrevocably eradicated” and could not recur). This reasoning echoes the Supreme Court’s clear rule that defendants bear a heavy burden in asserting voluntary cessation and implicitly holds public actors to the same standard. See Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 189.
Secondly, the Ninth Circuit has held that mootness doctrine in general and the voluntary cessation exception in particular is underscored by the principle that “[o]nce a defendant has engaged in conduct the plaintiff contends is unlawful and the courts have devoted resources to determining the dispute, there is Article III jurisdiction to decide the case as long as the parties do not plainly lack a continuing interest ...” See Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.2004). Therefore, while this court acknowledges the persuasive authority cited by defendants that this court should never assume that agency policies will vacillate according to the whims of litigation, mootness analysis in this circuit must ultimately turn on the defendants’ showing in the present action and the parties’ continuing interest in the case.
*8 Several factors influence the likelihood of recurrence in this case. First of all, the record before the court indicates that significant causes for delay may have been addressed by features of the new regulations. The new framework (1) creates notice requirements and mechanisms by which an immigrant learns of the next steps for obtaining documentation, (2) delineates responsibility for initiating processing of documentation to the immigrant, and (3) organizes the scheduling of immigration relief hearings around the time necessary to process security clearances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(d)-(i). These changes address the most glaring communication gaps, and they relocate the time needed for security checks to a pre-adjudication period unreached by the present class action.
The gravamen of this action is the unjustified and injurious delay in issuing documentation of LPR status. The relief sought is the eradication of that delay. It is defendant’s heavy burden to show, with absolute clarity, the eradication of the delays challenged in the case. Defendants have not carried this burden. Nothing in the new regulations targets the USCIS, the actor ultimately responsible for issuing LPR documentation, and nothing

in the regulations creates accountability in interagency communication. See generally 70 Fed.Reg. 4743; 8 C.F.R. § 1003; 8 C.F.R. § 1208. In fact, the regulations do not address any objectives or procedures for documentation of LPR status, because they do not concern the events after EOIR adjudication. Id. Though delays are at the heart of plaintiffs’ complaint, the regulations do not provide any accountability-or even any commitment-to a certain time frame for processing. Id. In the absence of corresponding regulatory commitment, testimony from individuals that improvements will ensue are insufficient to meet a defendants’ burden to “assert[ ] or demonstrate[ ] that they will never resume the challenged conduct” of substantial delays in formal documentation of defensive adjustments of status. See Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir.1998) (finding a case was not moot where defendants did not assert that any “interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation”).
In addition to the fact that the record before the court lacks a regulatory commitment to reasonably efficient documentation of status, specific features of the new system make it vulnerable to new sources of delay.7 For instance, under the new system, Immigration Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) must submit a document to USCIS verifying the grant of LPR status, the completion of security checks, and the absence of a pending appeal. May 4, 2005 Sposato Dep. at 37:6-18. Sposato testified that there is no nationwide system in place for the transfers from ICE to USCIS, and that individual offices may adopt methods ranging from faxing them, walking papers from office to office, or possibly transmitting them via email. Id . at 69:13-19. Local offices of ICE and USCIS “have been instructed to develop reliable methods of rapid transmission,” but there is no time frame required. May 23, 2005 Second Supp. Sposato Dec. ¶ 6. The record in this case gives little confidence that merely transferring these documents will make the system more efficient than the file-sharing practice in place under the former system. If past history is any indication, bureaucratic inertia and bungling will not make the new regulations any more efficient. There are new opportunities in these regulations for communication gaps and delays.

7

The discussion herein is confined to criticisms of the

policy relating exclusively to the post-adjudication

period. The policy consequences of relocating delays to

pre-adjudication time periods are unreached by the

class certified in this action. But the court cannot help

but note that the policy changes also beg three glaring,

interrelated questions: (1) whether delays in the system

have merely been relocated to pre-hearing time periods,

(2) whether the new policy will cause a radical increase

in the number of security investigations that must take

place (because every applicant for immigration relief

must be cleared, rather than merely those few who are

6

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
granted the sought relief), and (3) whether the increased numbers of clearances required by (2) above will further prolong security clearance times.
*9 Plaintiffs are also extremely concerned that by defendants own description of their policies, the new regulations have preserved discretionary, unbounded grounds for USCIS delay in issuing documents where the agency has any concern for “national security.” Defs’ Mot. at 9, n.6. Sposato testified that delay in the issuance of documentation would occur only where national security is a “significant concern,” but plaintiffs are unconvinced by self-imposed restrictions and one official’s promise of restraint in the invocation of the policy. See May 4, 2005 Sposato Dep. at 140:17-22. This court need not wade into the parties’ venomous debate over the importance of the government’s interest in reserving a category of immigrants for special processing, as this question goes to the merits of the legal claims before this court. Adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims will reveal whether DHS had established disciplined grounds for triggering this special treatment, or whether totemic use of the term “national security” will provide shelter for various permutations of bureaucratic errors, administrative backlogs, inter-agency communication lapses, or rootless security justifications. For present purposes, the significance of USCIS representations on national security cases is that there remains an express category of applications to which the agency believes it has no ministerial duty of timely documentation. Whether or not this is a proper characterization of their duties, it is extremely significant to the mootness analysis here, because defendants in fact have expressly refused to commit to “completely and irrevocably eradicat[ing]” delays between adjudication and documentation of status. See Norman-Bloodsaw, 135 F.3d at 1274 (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631-32, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979)).
A smaller but nevertheless additional concern is that newly-adjudicated LPRs served by extremely busy USCIS sub-offices are not permitted to book the first available appointment to initiate documentation if appointments at the office are fully-booked for the two-week window USCIS is permitted to open for scheduling. May 4, 2005 Sposato Dep. at 66:2-68:18; May 23, 2005 Sposato Dec. ¶ 4 (describing availability of appointments in the “overwhelming majority” of USCIS districts, but noting that some districts continue to experience appointment capacity challenges that the department is struggling to correct). In other words, an LPR must return to the USCIS office every day until an appointment within the next two week period opens for processing, and the USCIS has no means of tracking how many times an individual must return to the office before actually obtaining an appointment. May 4, 2005 Sposato

Dep. at 66:11-19. Without passing premature judgment on the rationale or efficiency of such a system, it further undermines certainty that delays in the issuance of documentation will evaporate for all class members.
In addition to the specific features of the new policy that raise concerns,8 analysis of whether defendants have the commitment or capacity to prevent delays in documentation must be tempered by the fact that the present class action lawsuit has driven agency behavior in this case, and that agency action has in turn fueled repeated justiciability challenges to plaintiffs’ claims. Attorneys for the government contacted local offices directly to initiate and process plaintiffs’ security clearances and issue documents and in some cases manually triggered expedited FBI clearance checks. See Sposato Dep. at 165:12-17 (“[t]he attorneys certainly watched these cases and worked with the district to have them accomplished. I don’t know whether you would characterize that as special attention. Normally attorneys are not focused on individual cases that are not in lawsuits”). See also id. at 163:5-165:17, 170:8-18. Given this testimony and the precision timing with which every one of the original and amended named plaintiffs’ persistent, long-neglected requests for documentation were processed, this court is left with no doubt that the filing of the present action directly caused, rather than correlated with, the issuance of documentation for named plaintiffs, and thus the attempted mooting of their claims.9 See Sze v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 153 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that correlation was inadequate to substantiate plaintiffs’ suspicions that litigation-related timing drove disposition of named plaintiffs’ applications for naturalization). See also 8/9/04 Defs’ Opp’n to Class Cert. (arguing for dismissal and denial of class certification because named plaintiffs’ claims were mooted by post-complaint resolution of their requests for documentation of status).

8

As a matter of policy logic, the court could predict

many additional sources of potential delay caused by

the changed regulations, such as administrative backlog

before and after adjudication of LPR status, new

communication gaps in the system (such as between

EOIR, ICE, and USCIS), failure to implement the new

policy, or bureaucratic ineptitude. However, the

deference due to federal agencies prior to the settling of

newly-minted policies would caution against such an

enterprise, as would the preference for adjudication in

concrete settings which underlies all Article III

justiciability analysis. The court therefore confines its

analysis to those indicators of delay which are

specifically evinced in the named plaintiffs’ records

and the parameters of the regulations themselves.

9

Indeed, the record before this court contains a fax

coverpage from the USCIS giving “expedited manual

7

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
FBI name check” results for original named plaintiff Rafaela Valdez-Parra and bearing the handwritten note “Santillan mandamus care.” See Rhyu Dec., Exh. 10 at 006128. See also Rhyu Dec., Exh. 10 at 000666.
*10 This is precisely the sort of strategic behavior identified as grounds for tempering invocation of mootness principles. See Zeidman v. McDermott, 651 F.2d 1030, 1050 (5th Cir.1981) (holding that a motion for class certification need not be dismissed for mootness where defendants, perhaps strategically, have tendered resolution of individual plaintiff’s claims). While the record before this court does not evince that the DHS changed its regulations to move security clearances outside the reach of the plaintiffs’ class action, the context of the case casts some doubt on defendants’ capacity or will to address the needs of the class as a whole, rather than simply target agency action for purposes of evading review.
As a last consideration, the policy changes at issue here involve EOIR practices for documenting adjustment of immigration status-a mighty ship indeed, and one that cannot easily change course, even with well-intentioned officials at the helm. See Aug. 4, 2004 Sposato Dec. ¶ 12 (describing the motive to change the timing of security checks as for the sake of national security and “to reduce the waiting time for documentation for aliens who are granted status by the immigration courts”). Although the former systems of security checks and documentation processing have been redirected, the lack of specific regulatory commitment to efficient processing in the context of an enormous and often cantankerous bureaucracy begs skepticism of immediate and holistic resolution of the claims in this case. The record demonstrates that many species of bureaucratic ineptitude led to long waiting periods for documentation, including failures to systematize requests for documentation, failure to notify immigrants and attorneys on systems for requesting documentation, oversights and confusion in responding to such requests, administrative backlog, and other problems. It would be folly to assume that a system alleged and partially admitted to be overwhelmed and riddled with blockages on March 31, 2005 is suddenly seamless on April 1, 2005.
Plaintiffs’ claims remain alive, and they are entitled to seek evaluation and potential enforcement of DHS ministerial obligations. Of course, the fact that this case is not technically moot does not preclude defendants’ opportunity to show that “the likelihood of further violations is sufficiently remote to make injunctive relief unnecessary.” See United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199, 203, 89 S.Ct. 361, 21 L.Ed.2d 344 (1968). That is a question for a future day.

B. Standing Defendants raise the additional argument that class members covered by the April 1 regulations do not face imminent injury based on concrete and particularized harms. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564, n. 2 (stating that the elastic concept of imminent injury cannot be stretched beyond its Article III purpose of limiting speculation and ensuring that the injury is “certainly impending”). Defendants’ argument on this score attempts to reopen the final disposition by this court on October 12, 2005 on an improper basis. The proper mechanism for a renewed justiciability challenge based on an intervening change in regulation is mootness, which captures the dissolution of plaintiffs’ interest during the litigation due to changed circumstances. “The doctrine of mootness can be described as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Srvs., 528 U.S. 167, 189-90, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). Defendants are not entitled to reopen this court’s holding that delay in the issuance of documentation of LPR status is a cognizable injury, rather, they are simply entitled to challenge that the causes of that injury are on-going.
C. Ripeness *11 As a final attack on the justiciability of plaintiffs’ complaint, defendants argue that the claims of class members granted LPR status under the new policy regime are unripe. In contrast to the numerous cases cited in this order in which mootness is deemed the proper analytical lens for justiciability challenges due to intervening changes in events, this court cannot find-and defendants cannot cite-a single case finding that a case has de-ripened after an initial finding of Article III jurisdiction, nor any in which ripeness analysis is used to explore on-going justiciability in light of changed circumstances.10 Ripeness is a doctrine of jurisdiction to be determined at the commencement of the litigation rather than, as a district court of this Circuit aptly stated, “a moving target affected by a defendant’s action.” Malama Makua v. Rumsfeld, 136 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1161 (D.Haw.2001). While each level of federal adjudication must evaluate all dimensions of Article III justiciability before accepting jurisdiction to hear the case or appeal, it is the dimension of mootness that captures changed circumstances during a single court’s adjudication. See Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 73, 113 S.Ct. 2485, 125 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993) (holding that while it was the circumstances at the “time of the initial complaints” which governed district court analysis of ripeness, it was the circumstances at the time of appeal
8

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

which governed the Supreme Court’s independent analysis of its Article III jurisdiction). The proper question before this court was whether defendants carried their burden to show that the new DHS policies will eradicate the harms alleged.

10

Defendants do not even defend their ripeness challenge

to the present action in their reply.

II. Justiciability of Pre-April 1, 2005 Class Member Claims The situation of those plaintiffs who were granted LPR status prior to the policy change on April 1, 2005 is in real terms unchanged. Other than the named plaintiffs whose documentation was requested personally by government attorneys, nothing about the passing of that date affects the circumstances of the class as a whole. Indeed, defendants have not drawn this court’s attention to a single institutional commitment or mechanism for efficient processing of the backlog predating the new regulations.11 Sposato has represented that the number of persons in this category is “diminishing rapidly as these LPRs make their appointments with USCIS for documents and our offices finish administrative processing,” but she has also testified that the prior system’s failure to delineate and promulgate responsibility for initiating processing of LPR documentation meant that USCIS often did not know of EOIR grants of status and could not begin processing. See May 23, 2005 Second Supp. Sposato Dec. ¶ 11; May 4, 2005 Sposato Dep. at 55:7-10. The USCIS website now carries a statement informing any person adjudicated to be an LPR to make an appointment for documentation (or, in the case of pre-April 1, 2005 LPRs, to commence background checks), but this gesture promises meager relief given the enormous communication gaps and administrative confusion alleged in this case. See May 23, 2005 Second Supp. Sposato Dec. ¶ 5. Given the presumably enormous increase in the number of persons subjected to security investigations as of April 1, 2005 (because the new regulations require that all applicants for adjustment of status, rather than all recipients, must be investigated), there is even less basis for confidence that the backlog will be timely cleared.

11

Defendants distort the language of the federal register

when they argue that it expressly commits to swift

processing of investigations unresolved by April 1,

2005. See Defs’ Mot. at 14. The regulations speak of

“avoid[ing] unnecessary delays,” “swift responses” for

the sake of national security, and allowing a

“reasonable period of time” for the DHS to process

background checks, but these and other comments of

describing time needed to complete background checks

all refer to the new system. 70 Fed.Reg. 4743-01, 4747.
*12 Even if this court had deemed the post-April 1, 2005 class members’ claims mooted by the new regulations, the claims of the pre-existing class members would survive. Apart from the dispositive fact that the current class is not constantly shrinking (but rather, constantly changing), this case is quite distinct from Sze v. I.N.S., a case argued by defendants. In Sze, the Ninth Circuit held that a change in immigration policy mooted future class members’ claims as well as the claims of the “constantly shrinking” numbers of persons still governed by the pre-existing policies. See 153 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir.1998). First of all, this court certified the present action as a justiciable class action before the intervening change in legislation, thus taking it outside of the ambit of a large swath of pre-certification reasoning in Sze in which the burden was on plaintiffs to show justiciable class claims. See id. at 1009. Secondly, the class at issue in the present case is quite large, and the record in this case gives this court no confidence that, as in Sze, the class will systematically shrink based on the steady resolution of pending applications. See id. at 1010. Testimony by USCIS official Janis Sposato described a system fraught with gaping procedural holes, one in which the USCIS is not receiving information about past LPR grants by the EOIR and therefore cannot proceed with security checks, let alone documentation. May 4, 2005 Sposato Dep. at 55:7-16. If that is indeed shown to be the case, the shrinking of the pre-April 1, 2005 portion of the class will be irregular and indefinitely incomplete.
Independent of this distinctions the present action also concerns delays and hardships not contemplated in Sze. Plaintiffs in the present action seek to address the adjustment of status to legal permanent residence, a status which drastically expands an immigrants’ rights to work, travel, and receive most public and educational benefits. Furthermore, they allege that persons deemed LPRs by an EOIR court but living without documentation of that status are denied not only those privileges associated with their newly earned LPR status, but the renewal of those work privileges associated with their pre-adjustment status. The hardships represented by this purgatory between adjudication and documentation is far beyond the realm of Sze, which contemplated an immigration “jump” from LPR to citizen. Though naturalization is the highest attainment of our immigration system and grants bedrock political rights and freedoms, it cannot reasonably be said that it equates to those hardships alleged and risked in the present action. The hardships alleged are compounded by a final distinction from Sze, namely that the time periods at issue are expansive, with plaintiffs adjudicated before April 1, 2005 allegedly waiting up to two years for documentation of a grant of LPR status. Such a time frame represents hardships far beyond the 120 day
9

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
concerns at issue in Sze, particularly if the case bears out that plaintiffs are unable to renew their pre-adjudication immigration statuses during this waiting period. Such a “demotion” in the immigration hierarchy to a position not unlike undocumented aliens is a drastically different situation than a naturalization delay for green card holders, who do retain rights to work and travel, as well as other benefits.
*13 Therefore, this court holds that plaintiffs granted LPR status prior to the enactment have shown a live controversy with defendants for which no resolution has been tendered. This portion of the class may proceed with their claims.
III. Decertification of the Class Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a court may amend or revoke certification of a class action before final judgment. See Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1)(C), 23(d)(4). Such decisions are committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 871, n. 28 (9th Cir.2001). Defendants’ arguments for decertification of the class rely explicitly on a finding that the claims of LPRs adjudicated post April 1, 2005 were mooted by the changed regulations. See Defs’ Mot. at 14-15. Other than this challenge to the size and cohesion of the class, defendants have identified no basis for decertification.
Taking up the question in light of finding that the case remains a live controversy, this court finds no grounds for decertifying the class. See Gen. Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) (holding that “[e]ven after a certification order is entered, the judge remains free to modify it in the light

of subsequent developments in the litigation”). Without dismissal of class member claims, numerosity remains unchanged. As discussed throughout this order, class members adjudicated by the EOIR at any time are united by the common question of fact (defensive adjustments of status through the courts of EOIR and attempts to obtain documentation of that adjusted status) and law (defendants’ ministerial duty to issue LPR documentation in a timely fashion). Individual variation among plaintiffs’ questions of law and fact does not defeat underlying legal commonality, because “the existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient” to satisfy Rule 23. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.1998). As discussed in this court’s prior order and unchallenged here, the interests and injuries represented by the named plaintiffs still satisfy the typicality and representativeness dimensions of Rule 23 analysis. See Santillan v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2297990, *11-12 (N.D.Cal.2004) (Patel, J.).
At the parties’ next appearance, this court will consider division of the class into two sub-classes distinguished on the basis of class members’ date of EOIR adjudication (i.e., a pre-April 1, 2005 and post-April 1, 2005 sub-class), as well as the addition of one or more named plaintiffs adjudicated to be an LPR on or after April 1, 2005.
CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

10

 
 Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 3542661 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Maria SANTILLAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; The United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., USCIS Director; David Still, USCIS San Francisco District Director,
Defendants.
No. C 04-02686 MHP. | Dec. 22, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Javier Nyrup Maldonado, Lawyers‘ Committee for Civil Rights, Marisol Perez, Nina Perales, San Antonio, TX, John C. Dwyer, Maureen P. Alger, Michelle S. Rhyu, Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Cooley Godward LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Edward A. Olsen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, Elizabeth J. Stevens, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
PATEL, J.
Re: Permanent Injunction
*1 Plaintiffs Maria Santillan, et al. represent a class of persons who have been or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review and to whom the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has failed to issue evidence of status as a lawful permanent resident. Following this court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and request for a permanent injunction, see Santillan v. Gonzales, 388 F.Supp.2d 1065 (N.D.Cal.2005) (Patel, J.), the court requested proposals from both parties as to the appropriate scope of the injunction. Having considered the proposals of both parties, as well as the record relied upon by this court in

granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, for the reasons set forth below the court issues the following permanent injunction.
INTRODUCTION The factual history of this case is well documented in the court’s previous orders. See Santillan, 388 F.Supp.2d at 1065 (granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment); Santillan v. Gonzales, No. C 04-02686 MHP, 2005 WL 1592872 (N.D.Cal. July 1, 2005) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss); Santillan v. Ashcroft, No. C 04-02686 MHP, 2004 WL 2297990 (N.D.Cal. Oct.12, 2004) (granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification). In brief, plaintiffs were granted the status of lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) by Immigration Judges or by the Board of Immigration Appeals, constituent courts of the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). Following the EOIR’s determination, plaintiffs sought documentation of their adjusted status as LPRs from their local United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) sub-office, through a process called Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication (“ADIT”) processing. Plaintiffs have not yet received the requested documentation of their permanent resident status.
The class is divided into two subclasses based on differences in the procedures through which class members were adjudicated to be lawful permanent residents. Members of the pre-April 1, 2005 subclass were granted LPR status under regulations in force prior to April 1, 2005. Under the pre-April 1 regulations, an alien seeking LPR status was not required to undergo any background checks prior to his or her EOIR adjudication. Thus members of the pre-April 1 subclass may have been granted LPR status without having completed the background checks now required by USCIS before issuing permanent documentation. In contrast, members of the post-April 1 subclass were required to complete the mandatory background checks prior to being granted LPR status.
Prior to 2001, an LPR awaiting permanent documentation could have obtained temporary documentation-often a special stamp on the LPR’s passport-simply by contacting USCIS and presenting a copy of the EOIR order. USCIS ceased granting temporary documentation as a general practice some time after September 11, 2001.
*2 Throughout this litigation, and again at the hearing regarding the scope of the permanent injunction, defendants have attempted to justify their decision to cease issuing temporary documentation and any delays in issuing permanent documentation by appealing to national security concerns. Although defendants’ concerns are
1

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
illogical and unacceptably vague as a legal justification for withholding documentation-an issue explored at great length in this court’s order on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment-for purposes of crafting an appropriate injunction it is useful to divide the stated concerns into three categories.
First, defendants are concerned about verifying the identity of LPRs who seek permanent documentation and verifying that each person requesting documentation has in fact been granted LPR status. As a result of defendants’ Byzantine organizational structure and antique computer systems, USCIS is forced to obtain a paper record of each adjudication and to manually match that record with the alien who appears at a USCIS office seeking status documentation. In order to verify the alien’s identity, defendants may ask the alien a series of personal questions based on information in the alien’s file (the “A-file”).
Second, defendants are concerned about completing background checks prior to issuing any form of documentation. As explained in this court’s previous order, the two required checks are an FBI fingerprint check and an IBIS name check. At the preliminary injunction hearing, defendants also suggested that they will perform a third check-an FBI name check-in some cases, and will withhold documentation until the name check is complete.
Third, defendants are concerned about collecting so-called “biometric” data-fingerprints, photographs, and the like-from LPRs prior to issuing documentation. The biometric data is used to create the permanent LPR documentation, commonly known as a “green card.” Defendants are unable to collect biometric data themselves. Instead, the collection process is outsourced to so-called “application support centers,” at which the LPRs are required to make a separate appointment. The application support centers send the biometric data directly to the facility that processes green cards. According to defendants, green cards are more secure than the previously issued temporary documentation. In support of their argument that they are legally precluded from issuing temporary documentation, defendants cite 8 U.S.C. section 1732(b), which states in relevant part that “[n]ot later than October 26, 2004, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall issue to aliens only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and other travel and entry documents that use biometric identifiers.”
Weighing against defendants’ purported national security concerns are the real and substantial harms suffered by class members who are unable to work lawfully or travel abroad to see family without status documentation. These rights are vested from the moment class members are granted LPR status, and defendants’ withholding documentation from them prevents class members from

exercising their lawful rights. Many class members, particularly members of the pre-April 1 subclass, have waited extraordinary lengths of time-time measured in months and years-for the documentation which secures their ability to live as lawful residents of this country. In keeping with this court’s previous order, the injunction set forth below must not unreasonably delay the issuance of such documentation.
*3 Fortunately, the parties are in general agreement as to the timeline and procedures to be followed in the (according to defendants) normal case where each of defendants’ security concerns can be addressed in a timely fashion. The parties diverge sharply, however, as to the appropriate course of action when the process breaks down. Because of defendants’ needlessly complex bureaucracy, many things may in fact go wrong, and often do, including the following: (1) USCIS may not receive notification of the EOIR adjudication; (2) USCIS may not receive the A-file, which contains personal information used to identify the LPR once he or she reports to USCIS to obtain documentation; (3) the security checks may not be completed on time; and (4) the application support center may not follow the proper procedure in collecting biometric data. Plaintiffs argue that in the event of a problem attributable to defendants’ internal communication or processes, defendants should be required to issue some form of temporary documentation on the same timeline as specified for the normal case, to be followed later by permanent documentation once the problem is resolved. Defendants propose that no documentation be issued in the event of a problem, but rather that the LPR be responsible for checking on the status of the documentation periodically until permanent documentation can be issued. Defendant further proposes a complex process of internal reviews of these delayed cases at six-month intervals, but does not wish to guarantee issuance of documentation within a fixed period of time.
The obvious problem with defendants’ proposal is that it does not depart in any meaningful way from the status quo. Defendants point to certain process changes-such as the creation of a special form that can be used to convey to USCIS all of the information necessary to produce a green card without the need for USCIS to obtain the A-file-but these changes are of an incremental nature and do not provide LPRs with the requisite level of assurance that their employment and travel interests will be protected.
Nor do defendants’ security concerns justify withholding documentation beyond a prescribed reasonable period of time. With respect to the first concern-identifying LPRs and verifying the grant of LPR status-the court is confident that defendants are sufficiently resourceful to find a way of doing so adequately in all cases. As was discussed at the preliminary injunction hearing,
2

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

defendants have at their disposal a variety of records systems that may contain information about the LPR seeking documentation. Defendants may also require the LPR to bring valid, secure, photographic identification to the USCIS appointment.
With respect to the second security concern, performing background checks, the court has already discussed at great length why defendants’ arguments are unsupported by the factual record or common sense.1 The class members have all been through EOIR adjudication, in which the Department of Homeland Security is represented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendants have not identified a single class member, past or present, who is a potential threat to national security. The background checks, by defendants’ own admission, are ineffective in identifying the “young mujahideen with clean records” whom the government fears most. Finally, defendants are free to pursue additional security checks once status documentation issues and to commence removal proceedings-including detention which is beyond the review of this court-in the event that an actual concern arises.

1

The post-9/11 government syndrome of citing

“security” as a justification proves too much. It cannot

be summoned up for every action or inaction lest it be

sapped of its vitality.

*4 Finally, with respect to the third concern-issuing secure documentation-the court has the following observations. Defendants conceded at the injunction hearing that although the practice of issuing temporary documentation has ceased as a general matter, temporary documentation continues to be issued in limited cases. Defendants have also strenuously argued that in the vast majority of cases LPRs will be able to obtain permanent documentation on the specified timeline. Requiring defendants to issue temporary documentation in the limited number of cases where the normal documentation process breaks down should therefore not result in the creation of a significant volume of temporary documents.
The court also notes that the statute cited by defendants, 8 U.S.C. section 1732(b), pertains only to travel documentation and does not prevent defendants from issuing temporary, unsecure employment documentation. With respect to travel documents, defendants are free to incorporate as many security measures into the temporary documentation as they are able, so long as temporary documentation is timely issued.
Undermining all of defendants’ security arguments is the faulty premise that the current state of affairs with respect to class members is “secure.” Defendants acknowledged at the injunction hearing that they do not possess any

accurate records of who the class members are, much less where they currently reside. Class members are presently forced to work and travel internationally, if at all, through unlawful means. To borrow defendants’ own term, the class members live in the “shadow[s].” The injunction set forth below gives defendants the opportunity to integrate them into the light of lawful society. The government’s notion that aliens running about without identification provides a more secure situation than aliens with documentation is absurd.
Based on the foregoing observations, the history of rulings in this case, the arguments of the parties, and the factual record submitted to the court, the court issues the following injunction.
INJUNCTION
I. POST-APRIL 1 SUBCLASS: PROCEDURES AND TIME PERIODS FOR ISSUANCE OF STATUS DOCUMENTATION
A. DHS’s “Post-Order Instructions” on Obtaining Status Documentation Provided to Aliens With Orders Evidencing LPR Status from EOIR 1. At the conclusion of the EOIR Immigration Court proceedings, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) counsel shall provide aliens with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) “Post-Order Instructions” for making a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) appointment for processing of status documentation. In decisions granting aliens relief from removal, the EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals shall include a notice to aliens with information on how to access DHS procedures for obtaining status documentation.
2. A notice of documentation procedures shall be maintained on the USCIS website. As appropriate, DHS shall provide hyperlinks to this posted notice from other websites maintained by DHS. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) shall also provide hyperlinks to this notice from appropriate websites.
B. Notice of Final EOIR Order Provided to USCIS by ICE *5 1. Within three business days of an EOIR order becoming final, local DHS/ICE Chief Counsel offices shall deliver to USCIS a notice of the final EOIR order via an ICE form (the “Background Check Registry” notice). The form shall provide information that USCIS requires to process an alien for status documentation without the need to obtain the alien’s A-file. ICE’s form shall also verify completion of all required security and
3

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
background checks, provide the alien’s Class of Admission code, and, where applicable, indicate that a visa number has been obtained from the Department of State. ICE shall promptly provide an additional copy of the Background Check Registry to USCIS upon request if, for any reason, the original is not available when the alien appears with proof of a final grant of relief.
C. Alien Makes and Attends USCIS Appointments for Documentation Processing and Biometrics Collection: Permanent Resident Card Mailed to Alien 1. An alien who has received an EOIR order evidencing a grant of LPR status will make an online InfoPass appointment and will appear at a local USCIS office pursuant to the DHS Post-Order Instructions. If the alien or his representative is unable to access a computer or obtain assistance to access one, or if the alien resides in a district where InfoPass indicates that there are no appointments available, the alien may go to a local USCIS office for assistance and USCIS shall schedule an InfoPass appointment for the alien within two weeks of the alien’s visit to the USCIS office.
2. At the appointment, USCIS will verify the identity of the alien and will ensure that the same alien has received a final EOIR order of relief by confirming that an ICE notice of such order has been received for the alien. The copy of the EOIR order or decision brought by the alien to his appointment will be compared to the ICE notice. If there are discrepancies, USCIS may need to contact the relevant ICE Chief Counsel’s Office to confirm accurate information. If the ICE notice has not arrived in a timely manner before the alien appears for an appointment, USCIS shall obtain the notice from ICE. ICE shall promptly assist USCIS if aliens appear with EOIR orders and there is a need to verify that a final grant has been issued.
3. If the alien’s biometrics have not been previously obtained in a manner that can be retrieved by USCIS for card production, the alien shall be scheduled at an Application Support Center (“ASC”) for biometrics capture within 15 days of the initial InfoPass appointment. The alien shall not be required to pay the ASC biometrics collection fee a second time if the alien can demonstrate prior payment of a biometrics collection fee. USCIS will also use the biometrics to assist with identity verification, where necessary.
4. A Permanent Resident Card (I-551) shall be produced and mailed from the DHS Integrated Card Production System (ICPS) facility within 15 days of capture of the alien’s biometrics at the ASC, or 30 days from the alien’s USCIS InfoPass appointment, whichever date is later.
*6 5. If DHS fails to produce and mail a Permanent

Resident Card (I-551) to an alien within the time period prescribed in paragraph 4 of this Section, the alien may appear without an appointment at his or her local USCIS office and the USCIS shall issue temporary documentation of legal status sufficient to secure the rights of legal permanent residency, such as a temporary I-551 stamp in a valid passport or an Employment Authorization Document. Any such temporary documentation shall be valid for at least six months. DHS shall issue a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) to the alien within six months of issuing the temporary documentation.
D. Extensions and Tolling of Time Periods to Issue Status Documentation in Certain Cases 1. The time periods above shall be tolled by any number of days that a class member fails to comply with DHS instructions that are issued consistent with this injunction.
II. PRE-APRIL 1 SUBCLASS: PROCEDURES AND TIME PERIODS FOR ISSUANCE OF STATUS DOCUMENTATION
A. Notification to Subclass Members of Procedures 1. Notice to individuals granted relief from removal regarding the procedures for obtaining status documentation shall be maintained on the USCIS website. The Notice shall instruct aliens to make an appointment with their local USCIS office and to bring a copy of their EOIR order and identity documentation. DHS shall create hyperlinks to the USCIS website notice, as appropriate, from other websites maintained by DHS. DOJ shall also provide hyperlinks to this notice from appropriate websites.
2. USCIS shall mail a letter to potential pre-April 1 EOIR-grantees who received orders between October 1, 2000, and March 31, 2005, and for whom USCIS systems do not show issuance of permanent I-551 cards. The letter will contain general procedures for obtaining documentation if an alien has received a final order of relief from EOIR that evidences a grant of lawful permanent residence.
B. Alien Makes and Attends USCIS Appointments for Documentation Processing and Biometrics Collection; USCIS Completes Processing, Including Remaining Background Checks; Permanent Resident Card Mailed to Alien 1. An alien will make and attend an InfoPass appointment at his local USCIS office. If the alien or his representative is unable to access or obtain assistance to access a
4

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
computer, or if the alien resides in a district where InfoPass indicates that appointments are not currently available, the alien may go to a local USCIS office for assistance and USCIS shall schedule an InfoPass appointment for the alien within two weeks of the alien’s visit to the USCIS office.
2. At the appointment, USCIS will verify the identity of the alien and will verify that the alien has a final EOIR order of relief resulting in a grant of lawful permanent residence. Where possible, USCIS shall obtain all necessary information from files and systems prior to the arrival of the alien at the InfoPass appointment.
*7 3. USCIS shall schedule the alien for ASC biometrics capture within 45 days of the alien’s initial InfoPass appointment. The alien shall not be required to pay the ASC biometrics collection fee a second time if the alien can demonstrate prior payment of a biometrics collection fee.
4. A Permanent Resident Card (I-551) shall be mailed to the alien from the ICPS facility within 15 days of capture of the alien’s biometrics at an ASC, or 60 days from the alien’s USCIS InfoPass appointment, whichever date is later.
5. If DHS fails to produce and mail a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) to an alien within the time period prescribed in paragraph 4 of this Section, the alien may appear without an appointment at his or her local USCIS office and the USCIS shall issue temporary documentation of legal status sufficient to secure the rights of legal permanent residency, such as a temporary I-551 stamp in a valid passport or an Employment Authorization Document. Any such temporary documentation shall be valid for at least six months. DHS shall issue a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) to the alien within six months of issuing the temporary documentation.
C. Extensions and Tolling of Time Periods in Certain Cases 1. The time periods above shall be tolled by any number of days that a class member fails to comply with DHS instructions that are issued consistent with this Plan.
III. DOCUMENTATION FOR CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE ALREADY ATTENDED USCIS APPOINTMENTS FOR DOCUMENTATION AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF INJUNCTION If a class member (in either the pre- or post-April 1 subclasses) attended his initial appointment at USCIS for documentation processing on or before the effective date of this Plan, the applicable time periods described in the

Plan shall be counted from either 15 days prior to the effective date of the Plan or the date of the initial USCIS appointment, whichever date is later. In all such cases where USCIS requires the alien to provide biometrics for card production, USCIS has 15 days from the effective date of this Plan or the date of the alien’s ASC appointment, whichever date is later, to produce and mail a permanent I-551.
IV. RECORDS AND QUARTERLY REPORTS REGARDING COMPLIANCE 1. If a class member has not received LPR status documentation within the time limits prescribed in Sections I and II of this proposal, the alien may notify a national point of contact (“POC”) at the USCIS Office of Field Operations at a dedicated e-mail address. In the e-mail inquiry, the alien or his or her representative will provide the alien’s name, A-number, date of birth, address, date of EOIR order, type of relief granted, whether the order is final (if the alien or his representative knows), the dates of the InfoPass and ASC appointments (if applicable), the USCIS district or suboffice involved, and any other relevant information about his or her request for documentation. If a class member cannot send an e-mail to the POC, USCIS call responders at the National Customer Service Center shall also collect information from a class member who calls the 1-800 number with an inquiry about the delayed documentation.
*8 2. USCIS shall keep records of class members who identify themselves, pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Section, as individuals who have not received documentation within the time limits set forth herein.
3. For three years from the effective date of this plan, DHS shall provide quarterly reports to class counsel listing the class members (by name and A-number) who have contacted the POC during the reporting period and who have been denied documentation of status despite the expiration of the relevant time periods stated herein. The report shall identify, for each individual, any reason defendants assert for their failure to issue documentation, and shall indicate whether the individual has received status documentation since contacting the POC. The reports shall be filed on March 30, June 30, September 30, and December 30 of each year, commencing with March 30, 2006.
4. In no way will failing to contact the POC affect the class members’ right to documentation, nor will it extend the time limits set forth in Sections I and II.
V. REMEDY FOR VIOLATION The remedy for a violation of this injunction will be
5

Santillan v. Gonzales, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

determined in contempt proceedings brought before this

court.

	  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

 
 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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARIA SANTILLAN, et al. Plaintiffs,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States; et al.
Defendants; and,
TERESA D. PADILLA, et al., Plaintiffs
v. TOM RIDGE, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants

Case No. C-04-2686 MHP Case No. C-08-1531 MHP [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE SANTILLAN AND PADILLA CASES AND TO RE-CERTIFY THE CLASS Hearing Date: June 16, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: 15 Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

771715 v1/PA

CASE NO. C-04-2686 MHP CASE NO. C-08-1531 MHP

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

On June 16, 2008, this Court held a hearing on the parties’ Joint Motion to Consolidate
the Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re-certify the Class. Upon full consideration of all
submitted papers and oral arguments in support of the Joint Motion, and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Consolidate the Santillan and
Padilla Cases and to Re-certify the Class is GRANTED as follows:
1. Padilla, et al. v. Ridge, et al., No. C-08-1531 MHP is hereby consolidated with
Santillan, et al. v. Mukasey, et al., No. C-04-2686 MHP.
2. The previously certified classes in the Santillan and Padilla cases are decertified
and a single class is certified as follows:
All persons who have been or will be granted lawful permanent resident status prior to termination of this Stipulation by the EOIR, through the Immigration Courts or the BIA, and to whom the USCIS has failed to issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. U.S. Attorney General, No 04-CV-21685 (S.D. Fla.).

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _J_u_n_e_1_6______________, 2008

TATES DISTRICT C
Hon. MarilyITn HISallSPOateOl RDERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Judge Marilyn H. Patel

ERN DISTRICT OF C

771715 v1/PA

1.

CASE NO. C-04-2686 MHP CASE NO. C-08-1531 MHP

 
 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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARIA SANTILLAN, et al. Plaintiffs,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States; et al.
Defendants; and,
TERESA D. PADILLA, et al., Plaintiffs
v. TOM RIDGE, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants

Case No. C-04-2686 MHP Case No. C-08-1531 MHP [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT Hearing Date: June 16, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: 15 Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

747032/PA

CASE NO. C-04-2686 MHP CASE NO. C-08-1531 MHP

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

On June 16, 2008, this Court held a hearing on the parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement. Upon full consideration of all submitted papers and oral arguments in support of the Joint Motion, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement is GRANTED as follows:
1. The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release attached hereto as Attachment A is preliminarily approved.
2. The Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Hearing in Class Action Concerning Issuance of Permanent Resident Documentation to Individuals Granted Status by the Executive Office for Immigration Review attached hereto as Attachment B is approved.
3. The following satisfies the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1)(B): (i) posting the Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Agreement of Settlement and Release in appropriate places on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) / Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) public websites, and (ii) distributing within three (3) business days of the date of this Order, the Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Agreement of Settlement and Release to all immigration assistance providers listed on the Roster of Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives maintained by EOIR pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 292 and 1292, and the Pro Bono Program section of the EOIR website.

747032/PA

1.

CASE NO. C-04-2686 MHP CASE NO. C-08-1531 MHP

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

4. A fairness hearing will be held on July 21, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. by this Court, located

at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, in Courtroom 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: __J_u_n_e_1_9_____________, 2008

TATES DISTRICT C HUoNnI.TMEDariSlyTnAHTITaElSlIPSDaIStSeOlTROICRTDJEURDEGDE

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

ERN DISTRICT OF C

747032/PA

2.

CASE NO. C-04-2686 MHP CASE NO. C-08-1531 MHP

ATTACHMENT A

lJ"NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SA:'\! FRA.NCISCO DIVISION

4

5 MARIA SANTILLAN, et aL,

6

Plaintiffs,

7

vs.

8 ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General ofthe United States, MICHAEL
9 CHERTOFF, Secretary of Homeland Security; THE UNITED STATES
10 CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; EMILIO GONZALEZ, USCIS
11 Director; DAVID STILL, USCIS San Francisco District Director,
12

13

Defendants.

Case No. C 04-2686-MHP STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE

14

15

Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter, on behalf of themselves, the Class and all Class

16 Members (as defined below), and Defendants Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General; Michael

17 Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

18 ("USCIS"); Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, and David Still, District Director, USCIS San

19 Francisco District (together, "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, hereby enter into this

20 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and Release (the "Stipulation"), as of the date beneath

21 pefendants' counsel's signature, subject to the approval of the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the

22 Federal Rules of Civ'il Procedure.

23

WHEREAS:

24

(A) Plaintiffs, Maria Santillan, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan

25 and others filed suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendants, :

26 the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland •

L"117 Security, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

the

28

San

District

m

.S.

STJPULATION A;>.:D AGREB1E'JT OF SETTLEYIE;>.:T A.'\D RELEASE

1 District of California on July 6, 2004, seeking class certification and declaratory and injunctive

2 relief; (B) By Order of October 12, 2004, the Court ( l) certified the class consisting of
4 persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the [Department of 5 Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)], thJOugh the Immigration Courts or 1 6 the Board ofimmigration Appeals [(BIA)] of the United States, and to whom USCIS has failed to 7 issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class 8 excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. US. Attorney General, No. 04-CJI-2 l 685 (S D 9 Fla.) and the plaintiff class in Padilla v. Ridge, No. i\11 03-126 (S.D. Tex.);" (2) named Maria 10 Santillan, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, and Jamie Rodriguez Santillan as class representatives; and

11 (3) named counsel of named plaintiffs as counsel for the class;

12

(C) By Order of August 24, 2005, the Court subdivided the class into a "pre-April

13 subclass" of persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the EOIR

14 under regulations in effect prior to April 1, 2005 tlu·ough the Immigration Courts or the BIA, and

users 15 to whom

has failed to issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with

16 the exception that the class excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. US. Attorney

17 General, No. 04-CV-21685 (S.D. Fla.) and the plaintiff class in Padilla v. Ridge, No. M 03-126
18 (S.D. Tex.), and a "post-April 1 subclass," who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident !

19 status by the EOIR under regulations in effect on April 1, 2005 or thereafter;

20

(D) In the same Order of August 24, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for

21 Summary Judgment Declaring Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act;

22

(E) By Order of December 22, 2005, the Court issued a Permanent Injunction;

(F) Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit; on February 16, 2006.

24

(G) One of Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Javier Maldonado on behalf

25 Committee for Civil Rights Under the Laws of Texas, represents the plaintiff class in

26 Ridge, No. M 03-126 (S.D. Tex.);

)'7
-1

Defendants deny all liability with respect to the ,:,,ction, deny

any vvron

the

Jl1

STll'UL\Tl 0~

:\GRE!:~1E'\T OF SETHX~1E'\T \'\D I<ELF:ASE

they committed any violation of law, deny that they acted improperly in

2 liability of any kind to the Plaintiffs, the Class, or the Class Members, bt:t have agreed to the ;

3 settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice in order to: (i) avoid the substantial .

4 expense, inconvenience, and distraction of protracted litigation; and (ii) finally put to rest and 1

5 terminate the Action and any and all Settled Claims (see below Section I: "Definitions");

6

(I) Class Counsel have conducted discussions and arm's length negotiations with

7 Defendants' Counsel with respect to a compromise and settlement of the Action with a view to

8 settling the issues in dispute and achieving the best relief possible consistent with the interests of

9 the Plaintiffs, the Class, and all Class Members;

10

(J) Class Counsel (1) have concluded that the terms and conditions of this Stipulation

11 are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Named Plaintiffs, the Class, and all Class

12 Members; (2) have agreed that the Released Parties should be released from the Settled Claims

13 pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Stipulation; (3) and have agreed to the dismissal of

14 the Action with prejudice and to seek vacatur of the Court's permanent injunction Order of

15 December 22, 2005 (slip copy published at 2005 WL 3542661 (N.D. Cal. 2005)), after

16 considering the substantial benefits that the Plaintiffs, the Class, and all Class Members will

17 receive from settlement of the Action, the risks of litigation, and the desirability of permitting the

18 Settlement to be consummated as provided by the terms of this Stipulation;

19

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the

20 parties to this Stipulation, through their respective attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court

21 pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in consideration of the benefits

22 flowing to the parties hereto from the Settlement, that the Settled Claims as against the Released

23 Parties shall be compromised, settled, forever released, barred, and dismissed with prejudice, .

24 upon and subject to the following terms and conditions:

25

I. Definitions:

26

W11erever used in this Stipulation, the following terms

the meanings set

)I
-1

A. "Action" means the above-captioned

pending in

District

c :10.

STIFLL.\TIO>v A:'\D AGREEilric:"T OF .\:\D RELEASE

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (docket no. 06-15366).

B. "Class" means, for purposes of this settlement only, a Plaintiff class •

3- pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, comprising all persons who have ! l
4 been or will be granted lawful permanent resident status prior to termination of this Stipulation by

5 the EOIR, through the Immigration Courts or the BIA, and to whom the USCIS has failed to issue .

6 evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class excludes !

7 the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. US A/forney General, No 04-CV -21685 (S.D. Fla.). :

8 This class definition is dependent upon dismissal of the action in Podillo, et al., v. Ridge, er a!.,

9 No. M-03-126 (S.D. Tex.), or transfer of that action to the Northern District of California. The

10 Class ceases to exist upon the termination of this Stipulation, and the Class shall not accrue any

11 additional members after such termination date. If the Padilla case is not dismissed or transferred

12 to this court, the parties will re-negotiate the terms of this agreement.

13

c.

"Class Member" means any Person included in the Class.

14

D. "Effective Date of Settlement" or "Effective Date" means the date upon

15 which the Settlement contemplated by this Stipulation shall become effective, as set forth in

16 paragraph 33 below.

17

E. The terms "evidence of LPR status" and "documentation of LPR status"

18 mean documentation issued by DHS to an alien having lawful permanent resident status that the i

19 alien may show to demonstrate his or her status for purposes of travel, employment, and other ·

20 activities requiring documentation of an individual's immigration status in the United States. For

21 purposes of this Stipulation, such documentation also constitutes the "evidence of registration as a

22 lawful permanent resident" in the class definition as defined above.

F. "Lawful Permanent Resident" ("LPR") means a lawful permanent resident

24 alien ofthe United States, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(20).

25

G. The term "Permanent Resident Card" or "Form I-551 means the secure,

26

is issued by DHS to LPRs as evidence their permanent

status.

"Plaintiff(s)" or "Named Plaintiff(s)" means

28

guez

Jaime

S'l'IPULAT!O.'i A:\D AGREDHc:'\T OF SETTU;,v:r:vr A'iD RELEASE

Hernandez, Pablo Hernandez Calvillo, and Rodolfo Navas;

2

I.

"Plaintiffs' Counsel" or "Class Counsel" means Cooley Godward Kronish ,

3 LLP, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Laws of Texas, and the ~1exican

4 American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Should these entities change their names or merge :

5 with other entities, those new entities shall also qualify as Class Counsel.

6

J.

"Released Parties" means any and all of the Defendants, their predecessors

7 and successors, their departments and agencies, and their past or present agents, employees, and

8 contractors.

9

K. "Settled Claims" means any and all actions, suits, claims, demands, rights,

10 liabilities, and causes of action, of every nature and description, whether known or unknown,

ll accrued or unaccrued, whether based on federal, state, local, statutory, or common law or any 12 other law, rule, or regulation, that were asserted or that could have been asserted or could be

13 asserted in this Action in any forum, that the Plaintiffs, the Class, the Class Members or any of

14 them, or any of their heirs, representatives, attorneys, successors, assigns, and any person they

15 represent, in the past had, now have, or during the pendency of the Stipulation might have against

16 the Defendants or any of them, which regard, concern, relate to, refer to, arise out of, or are based

17 upon, in any way: (a) the allegations, transactions, facts, matters, occurrences, representations,

18 omissions, disclosures, statements, failure to disclose, or failure to act involved, set forth, referred

19 to or that were, could be, or could have been asserted in the Action, including known and 20 Unknown Claims as herein defined, and whether or not concealed or hidden; (b) any Defendant's

21 provision or failure to provide evidence of LPR status, and the manner or timing of such

22 provision or non provision; (c) the Defendants' defense of or settlement of the Action. Provided, •

23 however, that the definition of Settled Claims shall not in any way impair or restrict the

of

24 the settling parties to invoke the dispute resolution provisions of this Stipulation at paragraphs

25 29. Specifically, this definition does not restrict a class member's

to pursue

26 Claims" except as set forth in paragraph V.26. As used herein, "Cnknown Claims"

mean.

any and actions, suits, claims, demands, rights, liabilities, causes of

to or

28

the

ass, or

ass

STIPULAT!Ori ,\f'iD AGr<EEMF.NT OF SF:TTLI':.\iF.'-.'T ).
.\ND RELEASE

Members do not know of or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of release of the 1

2 Released Parties, including but not limited to those that, if kl1ow11 by them, might have affected 1
3 their agreement to the Settlement.

4

L.

"Settlement" means the settlement contemplated by this Stipulation.

5

II. Release; Scope and Effect of Release

6

1.

The obligations incurred pursuant to this Stipulation shall be a full and final

7 disposition of the Action with prejudice and of any and all Settled Claims as against all Released

8 Parties.

9

2.

On the Effective Date, the Plaintiffs, the Class, and the Class Members, on behalf

l 0 of themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, attorneys, successors,

11 assigns, agents, affiliates, and pa1iners, and any Persons they represent ("Releasing Parties"),

12 shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and

13 forever released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties of and from any and all of the 14 Settled Claims, and the Releasing Parties shall forever be barred and enjoined from bringing or 15 prosecuting any Settled Claim against any of the Released Parties. The terms of this paragraph do 16 not limit the Individual Claims or Class Claims that Plaintiffs may bring pursuant to paragraphs

17 26-29.

,.,

18

.).

This Stipulation is contingent on the Court's vacating its permanent injunction

19 Order of December 22, 2005 (published at 2005 WL 3542661 (N.D. Cal 2005)) and the

20 preservation of the summary judgment Order (published at 388 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal.

21 2005)). Defendants' concurrence with the preservation of the summary judgment Order does not

22 constitute, and shall not be deemed to imply, Defendants' agreement with the findings or 1

decisions contained in that Order.

24

4.

In consideration for the releases contained herein, and subject to this Stipulation's

25 conditions, the Defendants will institute requirements, as detailed herein, for the issuance

26 evidence of LPR status to Class Members who are issued any of the 27 EOIR: (i) orders granting adjustment of status to permanent residence; (ii)

orders

status a

6.

STIPl;LI.TlOI"\ A'>O AGRF:E.Vll::Yr OF SETTI.E\·It:I"\T

i\>dJ HELEASE

residence; (iii) orders granting suspension of deportation and adjustment of status a non-

2 permanent resident to permanent residence; (iv) suspension of deportation or special e

3 cancellation of removal; or (v) any other form of relief from removal that EOIR may grant that .

4 results in a Class ::'v1ember being granted LPR status at the conclusion of removal proceedings

5 (collectively, the "Covered Orders"). See 8 U.S.C. § 1159; 8 U.S.C. § 1186a; 8 U.S.C. § 1186b;'

6 former 8 U.S.C. § 1254; 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b); 8 U.S.C. § 1255; Pub. L. No. 106-429, § 101(a),,

7 Nov. 6, 2000, 114 Stat 1900, 1900A-57; Pub. L. No. 106-378, Oct. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 1442; Pub.

8 L. No. 105-277, Div. A, § 101 (h), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-480, 2681-53 8; Pub. L. No. 1059 100, Title II, § 202, Nov. 19, 1997, 111 Stat.2193; Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, Title VI, Sept.

10 30, 1996, 119 Stat 3009-709; Pub. L. No. 102-404, Oct. 9, 1992, 106 Stat. 1969; Pub. L. No. l 01-

11 238, S 2, Dec. 18,1989,103 Stat. 2099; Pub. L. No. 101-167, Title V, § 599E, Nov. 21, 1989,

12 103 Stat. 1263; Pub. L. No. 97-271, Sept. 30, 1982, 96 Stat. 1l 57; Pub. L. No. 95-145, Title I,

13 §§ 101-107, Oct. 28, 1977,91 Stat. 1223; Pub. L. No. 89-732, Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1161; 8

14 U.S.C. § 1255b; 8 U.S.C. § 1259; 8 U.S.C. § 1160; 8 U.S.C. § 1255a; 50 U.S.C. § 403h. As used

15 in this Stipulation, the term "Final Covered Order" shall apply to Covered Orders that satisfy

16 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B).

17

III. Requirements for Issuance of Status Documentation

18 A. Notice to Class

19

5.

Defendants, acting through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"),

20 agree to provide to any Class Member who receives a Covered Order from an Immigration Court

21 a written description of the Post-Order Instructions for obtaining documentation of LPR status

22 from USCIS at the time such Class Member receives such Covered Order. Defendants, acting

23 through the BIA, agree to provide to any Class Member who receives a Covered Order from the

24 BIA information in the decision on how to access DHS procedures for obtaining documentation

25 of LPR status from USCIS.

26

6.

Defendants agree to post the information contained in written

27 Post-Order

on USCIS's public website, and to provide appropriate

to the

ons

JC

and

STII'LLATIO:'\ ,\.'\D AGRE:EME!\T OF SETTLD·JE'\T .\1\D RELEASE

j.

Class Member \vho received a Covered Order prior to April l, 2005 and who l

2 has not, as of the Effective Date of this Stipulation, received the Post-Order Instructions, shall be

3 provided the Post-Order Instructions if and when he or she contacts LJSCIS seeking issuance of

4 status documentation.

5

8.

Defendants will also notify Class Members of the Settlement pursuant to a Coun-

6 approved Notice to the Class pursuant to paragraph 30 of this Stipulation.

7 B.

Communication between ICE and US CIS of Class Members' Status

8

9.

Within three (3) business days of a Class Member's Covered Order from an

9 Immigration Court becoming final, ICE shall provide notice to USCIS that provides all necessary

10 information for US CIS to process such Class Member's status documentation, such as

11 verification that all required security and background checks have been completed, the Class

12 Member's class admission code, and, where applicable, confirmation that the Department of State

13 has provided such Class Member a visa number.

14 c. Timing of Issuance of Status Documentation

15

10. Subject to the exceptions in this Stipulation, USCIS shall issue a Permanent

16 Resident Card (Form I-551) within (i) fifteen (15) business days of capture ofthe Class Member's

17 biometrics at the Application Support Center ("ASC") as described in paragraph 15 of this

18 Stipulation; or (ii) thirty (30) business days from the Starting Date, as defined in paragraph 11 of

19 this Stipulation, whichever date is later.

20

11. For Class· Members who have been issued a Final Covered Order as of the

21 Effective Date of this Stipulation, the "Starting Date" shall mean: (i) the date on which the Class

22 Member first presents himself or herself at a local USCIS office in conformity with paragraphs

23 12-14 of this Stipulation; or (ii) the Effective Date of this Stipulation, whichever is later. For

24 future Class Members who receive a Final Covered Order after the Effective Date of

25 Stipulation, the "Stariing Date" is the date on which the Class ?v1ember first presents

or

26 herself at a local USCIS office in conformity with paragraphs 12-14 of

27 D.

The Initial USCIS Appointment

12. In

to

on,

must

8.

ST!PULATiO:\ A:\D AGREEME:\T OF SETfLE;I·lE:\T

A:\D HELEASE

'
make an appointment at a local users office using InfoPass or other routine means used for I

2 making US CIS appointments. For purposes of this Stipulation, this appointment at USCIS will

')
.)

be termed the "InfoPass appointment." If the Class Member is unable to do so himself or herself 1

4 because the Class Member (or his or her representative, if any) does not have access to, or ability

5 to access. the Internet, or because Info Pass or other routine means used for making USCIS

6 appointments indicates the unavailability of such appointments, the Class Member may come to a

7 local USCIS office without previously contacting USCrS, and USCIS will schedule the Class

8 Member's USCIS appointment not later than two (2) weeks after the Class Member's visit to the

9 USCIS office.

10

13. In order to conform with this paragraph of the Stipulation, the Class Member must

11 appear at the USCIS appointment set pursuant to paragraph 12 of this Stipulation with the

12 following information: (i) his or her copy of the Covered Order; (ii) satisfactory evidence of his

13 or her identity; (iii) a passport, if available; and (iv) any US CIS receipt notice issued to the Class

14 Member in connection with the application for relief and any evidence of prior biometric

15 processing, if such documents are in the Class Member's possession. The failure to present the

16 items in (iii) and (iv) above will not affect the date of the commencement of the prescribed period

17 of time. Using the above documents, US CIS will verify the identity of the Class Member and that

18 the same Class Member hasreceived a Final Covered Order.

19

14. Ifthe Class Member does not bring the documents required in paragraph 13(i) and

20 (ii) to his or her InfoPass appointment, USCIS will schedule a subsequent InfoPass appointment

21 for the Class Member, and the prior appointment will not be deemed in conformity with

22 paragraph 13 of this Stipulation.

23

15. If at the time of an InfoPass appointment at USCIS that conforms with paragraphs

24 i 12 and 13 of this Stipulation, US CIS determines that the Class Member's biometrics have not

I 25 I been previously obtained, or have not been obtained in a manner

can

US CIS

26 I for card production, USCIS shall schedule a new appointment at an ASC

,-
.:.I

II
il

for the Class Member within fifteen (1

business days

the above-mentioned

I!

I!
(:

to a DHS

and

i

9.

STrPCLATlO.'\ Ai\D AGR££ME\'T Of SETTLD1P<T Ai'D P.ELEASE

demonstrate prior payment of that fee in association \Vith his application for relief that EOIR

2 granted, the Class Member will not be charged additional fees for providing biometric

3 information at the ASC. A Class Member may demonstrate prior payment by showing a USCIS

4 fee receipt indicating such payment, a cancelled check for the biometric fee, a credit card receipt

5 for the fee, a copy of the money order submitted for the fee payment, or the customer receipt from

6 the institution that issued the money order.

7

16. The time periods described in paragraphs 10, 11, and 14 shall be tolled during any

8 period that a Class Member fails to attend a scheduled ASC appointment and provide biometrics,

9 fails to provide the infonnation in 13(i) or 13(ii) necessary for processing his or her request for

10 documentation of LPR status, or fails to comply with any other requirements of such paragraphs.

I 1 E.

Administrative Remedies for Non-Issuance of Status Documentation

12

17. USCIS shall establish a National Point of Contact ("POC"), with a dedicated c-

13 mail address or website, to accept inquiries from Class Members who do not receive status

14 documentation within the period specified in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Stipulation.

15

18. Any Class Member who does not receive documentation of LPR status within the

16 period specified in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Stipulation may, personally or through a

17 representative, contact the POC at the dedicated USCIS e-mail address or through a USCIS

users 18 website location, provided that

is able to establish such a website location as a

19 replacement for the e-mail process. If a Class Member is unable to send an e-mail to the POC or
20 to use the replacement website location, once implemented, to contact the POC, the Class

21 Member may call the USCIS National Customer Service Center toll free number to make such

22 inquiry, and the USCIS National Customer Service Center shall collect the information listed in

paragraph 19 and transmit it to the national POC.

24

19. The Class Member or his or her representative, in the e-mail to the POC or the

25 replacement USCIS website location (if created) or the call to the USCIS

26 Service Center referred to in paragraph i 8, must transmit following information: (a)

27 Member's name; (b) Class Member's "A number"; (c) Class Member's date

,.

s

the Class

s

Order

rei

] 0.

STIP\JLAT!O!\ A!\D AGREEf.1F:NT OF SETTLEMENT

,\:"'D RELEASE:

granted to the Class Member by EOIR; (g) location of USCIS office where Class Member

2 attended an lnfoPass appointment at liSCIS; (h) dates of Class :viember's CSCIS InfoPass .

3 appointment(s) and ASC appointments (if applicable); and (i) any other available information

4 regarding Class Member's efforts to obtain status documentation. In order to ensure that the class

5 member provides all the information elements in this paragraph necessary for the POC to inquire

users 6 about the class member's status documentation,

may provide a form to be attached to the

7 class member's e-mail, or create a replacement website format, for the class member to complete

8 the requested information.

9

20. Within twenty-one (21) business days after a Class Member or his or her

10 representative sends the e-mail, submits the US CIS website form (once created), or contacts the

11 toll free number and conveys the required information in paragraph 19, USCIS shall mail or

12 otherwise issue to the Class Member a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551 ). If US CIS does

13 not mail or otherwise issue a Form 1-551 to a Class Member within such period, then: (i) the

14 Class Member may appear without an appointment at a local USCIS office; (ii) at such

15 appearance, after USCIS confirms that USCIS has not mailed or otherwise issued the Class

16 Member's Form 1-551, USCIS shall issue the Class Member temporary documentation of LPR

17 status that is sufficient for the Class Member to present when required to provide evidence of his

18 or her immigration status for travel, employment, or other purposes requiring such evidence. Any i

19 such temporary documentation shall be valid for at least six (6) months. DHS shall issue a

20 permanent l-551 card to the Class Member within six (6) months of issuing the temporary

21 documentation. When issuing either temporary or permanent documentation of status, nothing in

22 this Stipulation shall prevent Defendants from complying with the requirements for secure •

23 documents as contained in section 303(b) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry

24 Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 107-173 (2002) (codified. as amended, at 8 C.S.C. § 173

25 Defendants are expected to meet their obligations to issue temporary documentation under

26 paragraph consistent with the li.S. Code.

users 21.

will maintain for two (2) years following

Effective Date

s

all

lO

to the C s

j 1.

ST!PLLAT!O."\ ,\:\0 ;\GREEME:\T OF SETTLE>IE:\T A:\D REL£.\SE

National Customer Service Center toll free number m conformity with paragraph 24 this

! Stipulation.

")
.)

F.

National Security Exception

4

22. Plaintiffs agree, on behalf of themselves, the Class, and the Class Members, that

5 nothing in this Stipulation shall limit Defendants from withholding evidence of LPR status from a

6 Class Member beyond any of the time periods stated in this Stipulation, where Defendants 7 possess specific and particular information about that Class Member that was not previously , 8 disclosed by the Class Member, on the record while in removal proceedings, that the Class 9 Member may be a risk to national security or public safety. The USCIS Director or Deputy 10 Director will certify, in writing, that (a) Defendants possess the specific and particular' 11 information, as described in this paragraph, that the Class Member may be a risk to national 12 security or public safety; (b) he or she has reviewed and considered such information that is , 13 available to USCIS, and (c) he or she approves the decision to withhold documentation of LPR 14 status from the Class Member for national security or public safety reasons as provided in this
15 paragraph. This writing is not required to be in the form of a declaration, affidavit, or any other 16 statement or vvTiting made under oath or the penalty of pe1jury. Plaintiffs also agree that nothing

17 in this Stipulation shall limit Defendants' authority to promulgate regulations, issue policy 18 directives and guidance, and to take other appropriate action, as necessary, concerning 19 background and security investigations conducted on aliens or the issuance of documents to

20 aliens.

21 G. Emergency Request for Issuance of Status Documentation

22

A Class Member may seek issuance of temporary status documentation at any ·

InfoPass appointment at USCIS where the class member provides the information in paragraph

24 13(i) and 13(ii) of this Stipulation if: (a) he or she brings written evidence demonstrating an

25 emergency need to travel (e.g., death or imminent death of an immediate family member

26 or severe illness a minor child or dependent who needs medical treatment abroad); or (b)

demonstrates an emergency need for

evidencing

or

er bi

28

users ll

status if

2.

STIPCLATIOK Ar\D AGREEMEr\T OF SE"fTLEVJ£,-..:T

Ar\D IH:u:,\SE

Class Member's checks have been completed and establish that the Class :V1ember does not pose a·'

2 risk to national security or public safety.

".)

IV. Defendants' Reporting Obligations

4

24. Defendants agree that, for two (2) years following the Effective Date of this

5 Stipulation, USCIS will provide quarierly reports ("Quarterly Reports") to class counsel listing

6 (by narne and A-file number) Class Members who have contacted the POC pursuant to

7 paragraphs 17-20 of this Stipulation during the reporting period and who have not been issued

8 documentation of LPR status by the due date of the Quarterly Report. The Quarterly Report shall

9 identify, for each Class Member, whether the relevant time period for issuance of documentation

10 of LPR status under this Stipulation has indeed expired and any reason Defendants assert for not

users 11 issuing status documentation; provided, however, that

will not list any reason provided for

users 12 in paragraph 22 of this Stipulation in the Report.

will provide such quarterly reports to

13 class counsel within twenty-one (21) business days after the end of each quarter, which end on

14 March 3 1, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each year.

15

25. Defendants will include in the Qua1ierly Report to Class Counsel the number of

16 times, if any, during the period that status documents have been withheld for the reason provided

17 for in paragraph 22 of this Stipulation.

18

V. Dispute Resolution Procedures; Exhaustion of Remedies

19

26. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, the Class, and the Class Members, agree that:

20 (a) their sole and exclusive remedy for any alleged breach of this Stipulation is specified in

21 paragraphs 27 ("Class Claims") a11d 28 ("Individual Claims") of this Stipulation; (b) no Class

22 Member may bring either an Individual Claim or a Class Claim (as defined herein) unless such

23 Class Member has (i) appeared at an lnfoPass appointment or other routine means used for;

24 making users appointments at users in conformity with paragraphs 12 and 13 this

25 I

l

l

I

I
I

of

27

II iIl•

I!

Stipulation; (iii) contacted the POC in

and

not been

documentation

lD

with paragraphs l 7 through 19 of this

LPR status \Vithin

1)-

the

s sumn;ary

3.

STIPULAT!O:" AND AGHED1E:'\T OF SETTLf:~H~:'\T

II

\:\D RELEASE

III'

judgment Order of August 24, 2005 (pub'lished at 388 Supp.2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2005) shall not l
2 constitute res judicata for claim or issue preclusion purposes in the context of either the l 3 Individual Claims that may be brought under paragraph 28 or the Class Claims that may be 4 brought under paragraph 27. Any claim that does not meet the requirements of this paragraph ! 5 shall be dismissed. Defendants reserve any and all applicable defenses, including those that may l 6 become available if the law changes, to any Class or Individual Claim filed under this Stipulation.

7 A. Class Claims

8

27. A "Class Claim" is any claim by a Class Member, represented by Class Counsel,

9 to enforce this Stipulation on behalf of the Class. This Court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction

10 to hear any Class Claim. No Class Claims may be filed or made, individually or collectively,

11 unless: (i) the Class Member making the Class Claim can identify at least 25 Class Members

users 12 from a minimum of 4 different

districts who have exhausted all of the procedures required

13 of them in paragraphs 12 through 20 of this Stipulation without receiving documentation of LPR

14 status, (ii) such Class Members still have not received their documentation of LPR status after .

15 two (2) calendar quarters since the Class Members exhausted those procedures; and (iii) the Class

16 Member making the Class Claim has identified the 25 Class Members in subpart (i), including !

17 names and A numbers, to the USCIS Chief Counsel, in writing, at least sixty (60) days in advance !

18 of requesting enforcement by the Court. The 60-day notice period in subpart (iii) may run

19 concurrently, in whole or in pmi, with the calendar quarters in subpart (ii). Defendants reserve

20 and do not waive any defenses that they may have to a Class Claim, including defenses without

21 limitation already raised in the Litigation and defenses that may arise under new laws or

22 regulations.

B. Individual Claims

24

28. An "Individual Claim" is an action brought by an individual Class

to

25 invoke court assistance to obtain individual relief in the

of

of

status.

26 An Individual Claim may be brought in this Court or in any other federal district court

27 jurisdiction over the parties. A Class Member's exhaustion of remedies does not per se

28 that such Class

met his burden to

to

4.

STfPLLAT!Ol\ Al\D AGREE\·IE:-cT OF SETTLE.VIE:\T \'\D Ri:l.EISE

1 Stipulation. With the exception of the requirements set forth in paragraph 26, this Stipulation r
2 does not restrict a Class Member's ability to pursue actions in accordance with this paragraph. .")' Defendants reserve and do not waive any defenses that they may have to an Individual Claim, 4 including defenses without limitation already raised in the Litigation and defenses that may arise 1

5 under new laws or regulations.

6

29. If a Class Member who has not received documentation of LPR status for the 1

7 reasons allowed in paragraph 22 of this Stipulation files an Individual Claim, and the court

8 determines that the Individual Claim was filed in accordance with this Stipulation, Defendants

9 shall, within thirty (30) days of such determination, inform the Class Member or his appropriate

10 representative in his individual lawsuit, in writing, that the Director or Deputy Director of USCIS

11 has made a determination to withhold that Class Member's evidence of status beyond the

12 applicable time period in the Stipulation because DHS possesses specific and particular

13 information that the Class Member may be a risk to national security or public safety; provided,

14 however, that issuing documentation of LPR status to that Class Member prior to that time will

15 obviate the need for USCIS to provide such writing. Defendants are not required to describe the

16 nature or details of information that they possess regarding Class Members for whom Defendants

17 decide to withhold evidence of LPR status under paragraph 22 of this Stipulation.

18

VI. Terms of Order for Notice and Hearing

19

30. Concurrently with their filing of this Stipulation, Class Counsel and Defendants'

20

21

22

23 i Notice to the Class, as well as a finding that ~be following satisfies the publication requirements

II
II

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:

(i) posting the Notice to the Class and this Stipulation in appropriate places

h
'I
lj

on the

USCIS,

ICE, and

DOJ/EOIR public wcbsites,

and

distributing within

(3)

26 II days of the date of the Court's preliminary approval of this Stipulation, the Notice to the

I 27 the Stipulation to all immigration assistance providers listed on the Roster

I

I

Representatives maintained EOIR

w 8

F . §§

15.

STIPCLATIO:'-: Ai\D AGREE:'>!Ei\"i OF SETTLEME.'iT .\'iO RELEASE

and 1292, and the Pro Bono Program section of the EOIR website.

2

VII. Terms of Order and Final Judgment

31. If the Settlement contemplated by this Stipulation is approved by the Court, i

4 counsel for the parties shall request that the Court enter Final Judgment substantially in the form :

5 appended hereto as Exhibit B. Such Final Judgment shall include a full vacatur of the Coun's :

6 permanent injunction Order of December 22, 2005 (slip copy published at 2005 WL 3542661

7 (N.D. Cal. 2005)) with such vacatur effective as ofthe date of the Final Judgment, except as to
8 those matters that will remain the subject of the District Comi's retained jurisdiction under i

9 paragraph 27 of this Stipulation. The Final Judgment shall not include vacatur of the Court's 1

10 summary judgment Order of August 24, 2005 (published at 388 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal.

11 2005)).

12

32. Within 60 days following the Court's entry of the Final Judgment, Defendants will

13 publish a Notice of Final Settlement Agreement according to the methods set forth in paragraph

14 30. The language of the Notice of Final Settlement Agreement will be agreed upon by the parties

15 and will constitute an updated Notice to the Class.

16

VIII. Effective Date of Settlement, Waiver or Termination

17

33. The Effective Date of this Stipulation shall be the date when all of the following

18 shall have occurred:

19

(a) entry of the Preliminary Approval Order in all material respects in the form

20 appended hereto as Exhibit A;

21

(b) approval by the Court of this Stipulation, following notice to the Class and

22 a hearing, as prescribed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

(c) entry by the Court of Final Judgment, in all material respects in

24 appended hereto as Exhibit B.
34. In the event that the District Court's approval the Stipulation or
26 Judgment referenced in 33(c) is voided on appeal, vacated, or terminated, parties'

::28 be

16.

STIPULATIO'I A,\'0 AGFU:E:v1E'IT OF SETTLDH:.'IT .\\'0 Ri::UC:ASF.

35. Defendants' Counsel or Class Counsel shall

the right to terminate the .

2 Settlement and this Stipulation by providing written notice of their election to do so

,..,
.)

("Termination Notice") to all other parties hereto within thir1y (30) days of (a) the Com1's

4 declining to enter the Preliminary Approval Order or modification of that Preliminary Approval

5 Order in any material respect; (b) the Court's declining to approve the Settlement embodied in 6 this Stipulation, or any material part of it; (c) the Court's declining to enter the Final Judgment or 7 modification of the Final Judgment in any material respect; (d) the date upon which the Final 8 Judgment is modified, reversed, or vacated in any material respect by the Court, the Court of 9 Appeals or the United States Supreme Court; or (e) the date upon which an Alternative Judgment 10 is modified, reversed, or vacated in any material respect by the Com1, the Court of Appeals or by

11 the United States Supreme Com1.

12

36. Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event the Settlement is terminated or

13 modified in any material respect or fails to become effective for any reason, then the Settlement

14 shall be without prejudice and none of its terms shall be effective or enforceable; the pariies to

15 this Stipulation shall be deemed to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as of the

16 date and time immediately prior to the execution of this Stipulation; and except as otherwise

17 expressly provided, the parties shall proceed in all respects as if this Stipulation and any related

18 orders had not been entered. In the event the Settlement is terminated or modified in any material

19 respect, the Defendants shall be deemed not to have waived, modified, or be estopped from

20 asseriing any additional defenses available to them.

21

IX. Termination of Obligations

22

37. The obligations of this Stipulation shall terminate after two (2) years from the

!~".)' Effective Date without further action by the Court. The termination of this Stipulation shall not

24 extinguish or diminish the District Comi's authority to resolve claims pending during the

25 I effective period of the Stipulation pursuant to the District Court's retained jurisdiction under

III paragraph 27, nor

the termination of the Stipulation extinguish or diminish the

,.,....,
L!

such pending claims to obtain relief based on the terms this

any

II J ')
il

X. No Admission of Wrongdoing

II

7.

STIP'GLATIOC< A:\D AGREEME:\T OF SETTLD·!ENT

A.'ID HEL!':A$[

II

3 8. This Stipulation, whether or not executed, and any proceedings taken pursuant to

2 it: (a) shall not be construed to waive, reduce or otherwise diminish the authority
4 of the Defendants to enforce the laws of the United States against Class ~1embers 5 notwithstanding the terms of this Stipulation, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the •

6 United Slates.

7

(b) shall not be offered or received against the Defendants as evidence of, or

8 construed as or deemed to be evidence of, any presumption, concession, or admission by any of

9 the Defendants of the truth of any fact alleged by the Plaintiffs or the validity of any claim that

10 had been or could have been asserted in the Action or in any litigation, or the deficiency of any

11 defense that has been or could have been asserted in the Action, or of any liability, negligence,

12 fault, or wrongdoing of the Defendants; or any admission by the Defendants of any violations of,

13 or failure to comply with, the Constitution, laws or regldations.

14

(c) shall not be offered or received against the Defendants as evidence that

15 failure to provide documents within the time frame set forth herein, or within any time frame, is

16 unjustified or illegal; and

17

(d) shall not be offered or received against the Defendants as evidence of a

18 presumption, concession, or admission of any liability, negligence, fault, or wrongdoing, or in any

19 way referred to for any other reason as against any of the pm1ies to this Stipulation, in any other

20 civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, other than such proceedings as may be

21 necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Stipulation; provided, however, that if this

22 Stipulation is approved by the Court, Defendants may refer to it and rely upon it to effectuate the

liability protection granted them hereunder.

24

XI. Attorneys' Fees

25

39. Within 90 days of entry of a final and nonappealable

26 approving this Stipulation, Defendants will deliver to Class Counsel the sum

27 settlemer;t of all claims for attorneys' fees and costs that could have been or

Defendants shall bear any costs ·

m

111

case •

$575,000,

18.

STIPULA TlO:\ A:\D AGREEMEt\T OF SETTLEME:\T

A"'D RELEASE

the terms and conditions of this Stipulation.

2

XII. Additional Provisions

40. This Stipulation, and the obligations incuned herein, shall be in full and final ·

4 disposition of the Action with prejudice and any and all Settled Claims against Defendants. On !

5 the Effective Date, Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released,

6 relinquished, and discharged the Defendants of and from any and all Settled Claims.

7

41. All of the exhibits attached hereto are hereby incorporated by reference as though

8 fully set forth herein.

9

42. This Stipulation may not be modified or amended, nor may any of its provisions

l 0 be waived except by a writing signed by all parties hereto or their successors-in-interest

1 1

43. The headings herein are used for the purpose of convenience only and are not

12 intended to have legal effect.

13

44. The administration and consummation of the Settlement as embodied in this

14 Stipulation shall be under the authority of the Court, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the

15 purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulation.

16

45. The waiver by one party of any breach of this Stipulation by any other party shall

17 not be deemed a waiver of any other prior or subsequent breach of this Stipulation.

J 8

46. This Stipulation and its exhibits constitute the entire agreement among the parties

19 hereto concerning the Settlement of the Action, and no representations, warranties, or

20 inducements have been made by any party hereto other than those contained and memorialized in

21 such documents.

22

47. This Stipulation may be executed in one or more counterparts. All executed

counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument provided that ·

24 counsel for the parties to this Stipulation shall exchange among themselves

signed

25 counterparts.

26

48. This Stipulation shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit the successors ;

27 and assigns of the parties hereto.

l not

more

one

9.

ST!l'UL\TION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTUcME:';T

Af\1) ru:LEASfc

merely by virtue of the fact that it, or any part of it, may have been prepared by counsel one 2 the parties, it being recognized by the parties that this Stipulation is the result arrn 's
3 negotiations between the parties and that all parties have contributed substantially and materially i
4 to the preparation of this Stipulation.

5

50.

All

counsel

and

any

other

person

executing

this

Stipulation

and

any

of

the

exhibits

I
1

6 hereto, or any related settlement documents, warrant and represent that they have the full :

7 authority to do so and that they have the authority to take appropriate action required or permitted

8 to be taken pursuant to the Stipulation to effectuate its terms.

9

51. Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel agree to cooperate fully with one another

10 111 seeking Court approval of the Preliminary Order in Connection with the · Settlement

11 Proceedings, the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and to promptly agree upon and

12 execute all such other documentation as may be reasonably required to obtain final approval by

13 the Court of the Settlement.

14

15

16

Michelle S. Rhyu (212922) (mrhy

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISI

17

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Santillan, et. al.

18

19

20

21

Mark Walters (Marl<.Walters@usdoj.gov) OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION

22

Attorney for Defendants

24
25
26 27 28
STIPLLAT/0:\ A:'\D AGR!::E:I·IE:'\T OF St:rru~:vlf:.'-.:T A'\D FtELEASC

EXHIBIT A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 MARIA SANTILLAN, et al.

12

Plaintiffs,

v.

13 MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney

14 General ofthe United States; et al.

Defendants;

15 and,

16 TERESA D. PADILLA, et al.,

17

Plaintiffs

18

v.

TOM RIDGE, Secretary of Homeland

19 Security, et al.,

Defendants

20

Case No. C-04-2686 MHP
Case No. C-08-1531 MHP
(PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Hearing Date: June 16, 2008 Time: 2:00p.m. Courtroom: 15
Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Cue!: YCt)D\\ARDLLl'
'"'\ l 1',,,\) f()

747032/PA

CASE No. C-04-2686 MHP CASE No. C-08-1531 MHP

1

On June 16, 2008, this Court held a hearing on the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary

2 Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed

3 Settlement. Upon full consideration of all submitted papers and oral arguments in support of the

4 Joint Motion, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint

5 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class

6 Members ofProposed Settlement is GRANTED as follows:

7

1. The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release attached hereto as

8

Attachment A is preliminarily approved.

9

2. The Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Hearing in Class Action

10

Concerning Issuance of Permanent Resident Documentation to Individuals

11

Granted Status by the Executive Office for Immigration Review attached hereto as

12

Attachment B is approved.

13

3. The following satisfies the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

14

23(e)(l)(B): (i) posting the Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and

15

Stipulated Agreement of Settlement and Release in appropriate places on the

16

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), Immigration and

17

Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and Department of Justice ("DOJ") I Executive

18

Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR") public websites, and (ii) distributing

19

within three (3) business days of the date of this Order, the Notice of Proposed

20

Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Agreement of Settlement and Release to all

21

immigration assistance providers listed on the Roster of Recognized Organizations

22

and Accredited Representatives maintained by EOIR pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 292

23

and 1292, and the Pro Bono Program section of the EOIR website.

24

25

26

27

28
COCLFY CODV\'ARD LLP
' \ ~
]'idd A, lO

747032/PA

1.

CASE No. C-04-2686 MHP CASE No. C-08-1531 MHP

1

4.

A fairness hearing will be held on July 21, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. by this Court, located

2

at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, in Courtroom 15.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 5 Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2008

6

Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
26 27

28

u AI ro

747032/PA

2.

CASE No. C-04-2686 MHP CASE No. C-08-1531 MHP

EXHIBITB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 MARIA SANTILLAN, et al.

Case No. C-04-2686 MHP

12

Plaintiffs,

Case No. C-08-1531 MHP

V.

13 14

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States; et al.

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE

Defendants;

15 and,

Hearing Date: July 21, 2008 Time: 3:00 p.m.

16 TERESA D. PADILLA, et al.,

Courtroom: 15

17

Plaintiffs

Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

18

V.

TOM RIDGE, Secretary of Homeland

19 Security, et al.,

Defendants

20

21

22

Upon consideration of the parties' joint motion to approve a settlement of the above-

23 captioned cases and to dismiss, and after a duly noticed fairness hearing,

24

25

26

27

28
755844/PA

CASE ~0. C-04-2686 MHP CASE ~0. C-08-1531 MHP

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion to approve the settlement agreement is

2 granted, the injunction issued on December 22, 2005, is vacated, and the case is dismissed. The

3 Court retains no jurisdiction over this matter except as stated in paragraph 27 of the settlement

4 agreement.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 7 Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2008

8

Hon. Marilyn Patel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
755844/PA

1.

CASE No. C-04-2686 MHP

CASE No. C-08-1531 MHP

ATTACHMENT B

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND HEARING IN CLASS ACTION CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT RESIDENT DOCUMENTATION TO INDIVIDUALS GRANTED STATUS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
SANTILLAN, ET AL. v. MUKASEY, ET AL., No. C 04-2686-MHP; AND PADILLA, ET AL. V. RIDGE, ET AL., No. C 08-1531-MHP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIV.
TO: All persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the U.S. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), through the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and to whom the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not issued evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident (LPR).
You are hereby notified that a hearing has been scheduled for July 21, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Marilyn H. Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 15, 181h Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 for consideration of a proposed settlement of the claims that have been brought on your behalf in this action.
Purpose of This Notice
This notice has three purposes: 1) to inform you of the proposed settlement and fairness hearing; 2) to tell you how to obtain more information, including a copy of the full proposed settlement agreement; and 3) to explain how you may object to the proposed settlement ifyou disagree with it.
Background
This class action lawsuit ("Santillan") was filed on July 6, 2004, to challenge alleged delays by USCIS in issuing documentation of status (e.g., a Pennanent Resident Card (Fonn I-551) or "green card," or a temporary document) to individuals who had been granted, or would be granted, LPR status by immigration judges or by the BIA.
The parties have reached a tentative settlement that the Court has preliminarily approved. The settlement agreement incorporates the class certified in Padilla, et al. v. Ridge, et al., No. C 08-1531 MHP ("Padilla"). Therefore, this Notice and the proposed settlement agreement, if approved, apply to all members, present and future, of the now-combined Santillan and Padilla lawsuits. This Notice and the proposed agreement do not apply to individuals who were granted their LPR status by USCIS, by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or by the fonner Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Description of Proposed Settlement Agreement
The following description is only a summary of the key points in the proposed settlement agreement. Information on obtaining a copy of the full, proposed agreement is provided after this summary. The Effective Date of the agreement is the date that the district court approves it, vacates its permanent injunction, and issues a Final Judgment Order that is materially the same as that proposed by the parties as an exhibit to the full

proposed agreement. The duration of the settlement agreement will be for two (2) years from the Effective Date.
The key tem1s of the proposed settlement agreement provide that any class member who is granted adjustment to LPR status in Immigration Court or BIA proceedings will be given a written description of the procedures for obtaining documentation of status. Except in certain cases involving national security or public safety, US CIS will issue each class member his or her Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) within thirty (30) business days of the class member's attendance at an appropriately scheduled appointment at the local USCIS office, unless biometrics are required. Where biometrics are required, USCIS will provide an appointment at a USCIS Application Support Center within 15 days, and the Permanent Resident Card will be produced within 15 business days of that appointment. In certain emergency travel and work circumstances, a class member may seek issuance of temporary status documentation. DHS may withhold documentation of LPR status from a class member beyond any of the time periods stated in the agreement, where defendants possess specific and particular information that the class member may be a risk to national security or public safety. However, any such decision to withhold documentation must be certified in writing by the USCIS Director or Deputy Director.
If a class member does not receive his or her Permanent Resident Card within the time periods described above, he or she may contact a USCIS national Point of Contact (POC). USCIS then will have twenty-one (21) business days to inquire into the status of the class member's documentation and to issue the Permanent Resident Card. If the class member does not receive the card after the 21 days, he or she may go to USCIS and will be issued temporary documentation valid for at least six months. USCIS will provide class counsel with quarterly reports listing class members, who have contacted the national POC but who still have not been issued their LPR status documentation.
Where a class member has exhausted all of the time periods and procedures for issuance of LPR status documentation required by the agreement, and still has not received such documentation, he or she may pursue an individual claim for documentation in any court with jurisdiction. The agreement also provides for class counsel to bring class claims to enforce the agreement under specified conditions.
The settlement agreement is conditioned on the district court's fully vacating its permanent injunction order of December 22, 2005. The Court's August 24, 2005, summary judgment order shall not be vacated, but that decision cannot be used to show that a fact or claim that was in dispute in this lawsuit has previously been decided.
The agreement further provides that, in consideration of the other provisions in the agreement, class members release all defendants from all "Settled Claims." For a complete description of the releases and "settled claims," you should obtain a full copy of the proposed settlement agreement. Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing, fault or liability, nor may their agreement to the preservation of the August 24, 2005, summary judgment decision be construed as Defendants' acceptance of any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law contained in that decision. The settlement agreement cannot be used
2

against defendants as evidence of any presumption, concession or admission of any liability, negligence, fault or wrongdoing in future actions.
For Further Information:
THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT. TO UNDERSTAND IT FULLY, YOU SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT. Copies of the proposed settlement may be obtained from: 1) The USCIS website at www.uscis.gov (click on Laws & Regulations and then click Legal Settlement Notices); 2) the EOIR website at www.usdoj.gov/eoir; 3) the ICE website at www.ice.gov; 4) immigration assistance providers listed on the Roster of Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives maintained by EOIR pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 292 and 1292; and 5) immigration assistance providers listed on the Pro Bono Program section of the EOIR website.
Procedures For Agreement or Objection:
IF YOU AGREE with the proposed settlement, you need not do anything at this time. You may be present at the public hearing on the proposed settlement as stated above.
IF YOU DISAGREE with the proposed settlement, you have a right to object to it and to the dismissal of the remaining claims in the lawsuit. Your objections will be considered by the Court as it reviews the settlement ONLY IF you follow these procedures: 1. Objections must be filed in writing by mail with the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division), 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.
ALL OBJECTIONS MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: a. Name, address, and telephone number of the person filing the objection. b. The case name and docket number (C-04-2686-MHP). c. A statement of the reasons for the objection. d. A statement that copies of the objection were sent to all lawyers listed below.
2. You must send copies of your objections to all lawyers listed at the end of this notice.
3. The deadline for filing objections and mailing them to the lawyers listed below is July 10, 2008. If Objections are filed by mail, they must be postmarked on or before July 10, 2008, to be considered timely. Objections filed or mailed on or after that date will not be considered. Class members who fail to file objections on or before the above date will not be permitted to testifY at the settlement hearing.
4. No later than July 18, 2008, counsel for plaintiffs and defendants shall file and serve responses, if any, to objections they timely receive from persons opposed to the proposed settlement.
3

Attorneys' Names and Addresses for Defendants and Plaintiffs:

For the Plaintiffs: Michelle S. Rhyu Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 650-843-5000

For the Defendants: Mark Walters Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Department of Justice P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-616-4857

4

 
 Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 1 of 23
ADRMOP, CLOSED, E−Filing, REFSET−EMC, RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04−cv−02686−MHP

Santillan et al v. Ashcroft et al Assigned to: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel Relate Case Case: 3:08−cv−01531−MHP Case in other court: 06−15366 Cause: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board
Plaintiff
Maria Santillan

Date Filed: 07/06/2004 Date Terminated: 02/15/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by David Anton Armendariz Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law of Texas 118 Broadway Suite 502 San Antonio , TX 78205 210−277−1603 Fax: 210−225−3958 Email: darmendariz@txlawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javier Nyrup Maldonado Law Office of Javier N. Maldonado 601 Howard San Antonio , TX 78212 210−277−1603 Fax: 210−225−3958 Email: jmaldonado7@satx.rr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Dwyer Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto , CA 94306−2155 650−843−5000 Fax: 650−849−7400 Email: dwyerjc@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen P. Alger Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto , CA 94306−2155 650−843−5000 Email: malger@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle S. Rhyu Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto , CA 94306−2155 650−843−5000

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 2 of 23

Fax: 650−857−0663 Email: mrhyu@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen Cooley Godward Kronish LLP 3000 El Camino Real Five Palo Alto Square Palo Alto , CA 94306 650−843−5480 Email: rchen@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 110 Broadway Suite 300 San Antonio , TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: mperez@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 110 Broadway Suite 300 San Antonio , TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: nperales@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Flora Rodriguez Santillan

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 3 of 23

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jaime Rodriguez Santillan

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Angela Desouza

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 4 of 23

Plaintiff Marcos Sosa Cartagena

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 5 of 23

Plaintiff Zibler Ismaili
Plaintiff Anita Lasbrey

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen P. Alger (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 6 of 23

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rafaela Valdez Parra

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 7 of 23

TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maria Valda Mohamad

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 8 of 23

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.

represented by Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John Ashcroft Attorney General of the United States
Defendant Tom Ridge Secretary for Department of Homeland Security

represented by Edward A. Olsen United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36055 San Francisco , CA 94102 415−436−6915 Fax: 415−436−6927 Email: edward.olsen@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 450 5th Street NW Washington , DC 20044 (202) 616−9752 Fax: (202) 305−7000 Email: Elizabeth.Stevens@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 9 of 23

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Eduardo Aguirre USCIS Director

represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
David Still USCIS San Francisco District Director

represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/06/2004
07/06/2004 07/06/2004 07/06/2004
07/06/2004
07/09/2004 07/09/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT /issued summons against Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ( Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 3361495.). Filed by Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Angela Desouza, Zibler Ismaili, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Maria Valda Mohamad, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Maria Santillan. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/8/2004 (ga, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2004)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 10/27/2004. Case Management Conference set for 11/3/2004 10:30 AM.. Signed by Judge James Larson on 7/6/04. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
3 MOTION for attorney Javier Maldonado leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Fee Paid) filed by Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Angela Desouza, Zibler Ismaili, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Maria Valda Mohamad, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Maria Santillan. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
4 MOTION for attorney David A. Armendariz leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Fee Paid) filed by Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Angela Desouza, Zibler Ismaili, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Maria Valda Mohamad, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Maria Santillan. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
5 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2004 09:30 AM. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/9/2004) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
6 PROPOSED ORDER 5 Certify Class filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2004 09:30 AM. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/9/2004) Modified on

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 10 of 23

07/09/2004
07/12/2004 07/12/2004 07/16/2004 07/16/2004 07/16/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004 07/21/2004
07/22/2004 07/22/2004
07/23/2004 07/23/2004 08/09/2004

7/12/2004 (ga, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2004)
7 Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu in Support of 5 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit Exhibit P)(Related document(s) 5 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/9/2004) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
8 ORDER by Judge James Larson granting attorney Javier N. Maldonado 3 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2004) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
9 ORDER by Judge James Larson granting attorney David A. Armendariz 4 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2004) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Santillan re 8 Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice, 9 Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice Granted (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/16/2004) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
11 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 7/16/2004) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 7/16/2004) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Santillan re 1 Complaint,,, 2 ADR Scheduling Order (POS J. Ashcroft) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Santillan re 1 Complaint,,, 2 ADR Scheduling Order (POS T. Ridge) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Santillan (POS D. Still) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth J. Stevens (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
17 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Marilyn H. Patel for all further proceedings. Judge James Larson no longer assigned to case. Signed by Executive Committee on 7/21/04. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2004) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
18 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 8/30/2004 02:00 PM. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/22/2004) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
19 Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu in Support of 18 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Errata C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P# 17 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 18 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/22/2004) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
20 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2004) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
21 NOTICE by Maria Santillan of Pendency of Other Action Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3−13 (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/23/2004) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
22 Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sposato Declaration# 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/9/2004) (Entered: 08/09/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 11 of 23

08/16/2004 08/27/2004 08/30/2004 09/07/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004
10/01/2004
10/01/2004 10/05/2004
10/12/2004 10/14/2004 10/14/2004
10/15/2004 10/18/2004

23 Reply Memorandum re 18 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Rhyu Supplemental Declaration)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 8/16/2004) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
24 Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu in Support of 23 , 18 , 19 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Second Supplemental) filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit V# 2 Exhibit W# 3 Exhibit X# 4 Exhibit Y)(Related document(s) 23 , 18 , 19 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 8/27/2004) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
25 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing to 10/4/2004 02:00 PM. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2004) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
26 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint For Mandamus, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/7/2004) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
27 MOTION to for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 1 Complaint,, filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2004 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 9/24/2004) Modified on 9/27/2004 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2004)
28 EXHIBITS to Motion 27 for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2004 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 9/24/2004) Modified on 9/27/2004 (br, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/27/2004 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2004)
29 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification# 2 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibit C)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/1/2004) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
30 Memorandum in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Z)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/1/2004) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
31 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/4/2004 before Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 10/5/2004) re 5 18 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Maria Santillan; MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Responses due by 10/15/2004. Replies due by 10/20/2004. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2004 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/5/2004) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
32 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 18 Motion to Certify Class (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2004) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
33 STIPULATION to Continue Initial Case Management Conference by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/14/2004) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
34 STIPULATION to Plaintiffs' Filing an Amended Complaint And For Extension of Time to File Answer or Other Responsive Pleading and Order Thereon by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/14/2004) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
35 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER filed by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/15/2004) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
36 STIPULATION AND ORDER:Case Management Conference reset for 11/8/2004 04:00 PM; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/15/2004. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2004) (Entered: 10/18/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 12 of 23

10/19/2004 10/20/2004
10/20/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004
10/29/2004
10/29/2004
11/01/2004 11/02/2004 11/05/2004 11/08/2004 11/09/2004 11/15/2004 11/18/2004 12/21/2004
12/21/2004
12/21/2004

37 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing: Motion Hearing set for 10/28/2004 09:00 PM. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2004) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
38 STIPULATION AND ORDER granting filing of amended complaint, extending time to and including 11/8/2004 for defendants to file a responsive pleading, and vacating 27 Motion to Amend/Correct; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2004) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
39 STIPULATION AND ORDER resetting Case Management Conference for 11/8/2004 04:00 PM; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/15/2004. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2004) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
40 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/27/2004) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
41 ****ERRONEOUS ENTRY, DUPLICATE ENTRY PLEASE SEE DOCKET NO. 40**** ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/27/2004) Modified on 10/29/2004 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/27/2004)
42 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 43 . *** STIPULATION to Dismiss Seven Named Plaintiffs by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/29/2004) Modified on 11/1/2004 (br, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2004)
43 STIPULATION to Dismiss Seven Named Plaintiffs CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 42 by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
44 ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 11/4/04 at 3:00 p.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2004) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
45 ORDER dismissing seven named plaintiffs;Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/1/2004. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2004) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
ADR Phone Conference by RWS (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2004) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
46 ANSWER to Complaint (Amended) by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 11/8/2004) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
47 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 11/8/2004 before Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 11/9/2004) (Court Reporter Catherine Luciano.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/9/2004) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
48 STIPULATION Stipulated Protective Order by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 11/15/2004) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
49 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER;Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/17/2004. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2004) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
50 MOTION for Admission of Attorney Nina Perales to appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2004) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
Received Order re 50 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2004) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
51 MOTION for Admission of Attorney Marisol Perez to appear in Pro Hac Vice filed by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 13 of 23

12/21/2004
12/28/2004 12/28/2004 01/06/2005 01/31/2005 02/02/2005 02/11/2005 02/18/2005
02/23/2005 02/23/2005 03/01/2005 03/04/2005
03/09/2005 03/18/2005 03/21/2005

Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2004) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
Received Order re 51 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2004) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
52 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 50 plaintiffs' Motion for attorney Nina Perales to appear Pro Hac Vice (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2004) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
53 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 51 plaintiffs' Motion for attorney Marisol Perez to appear Pro Hac Vice (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2004) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
54 NOTICE of Appearance by Nina Perales Marisol Perez, Tom Saenz, Hector Villagra, Victor Rodriguez and Victor Viramontes (Perales, Nina) (Filed on 1/6/2005) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
55 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS NAMED PLAINTIFF YI QIANG REN by Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 1/31/2005) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
56 STIPULATION AND ORDER dismissing plaintiff Yi Qiang Ren; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/31/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2005 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1)(Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 2/11/2005) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
58 MOTION for Discovery Stay Pending Decision On Motion To Dismiss filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notices of Depositions (2)# 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Walters, Mark) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
59 Memorandum in Opposition re 58 MOTION for Discovery Stay Pending Decision On Motion To Dismiss Based on New Regulation filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A# 2 Exhibit Attachment B# 3 Exhibit Attachment C)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 2/23/2005) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
60 Proposed Order re 59 Memorandum in Opposition, to Stay Discovery by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 2/23/2005) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
61 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denying 58 Motion defendants' motion for stay of Discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss; (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
62 STIPULATION re 57 MOTION to Dismiss Claims by Future Class Members With Prejudice Due to New Regulation, Motion to Dismiss Existing Class Members' Claims Without Prejudice And/or Motion to Decertify The Class by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 3/4/2005) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
63 STIPULATION AND ORDER 57 MOTION to Dismiss reset for 4/18/2005 02:00 PM;.(awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2005) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
64 STIPULATION re 57 MOTION to Dismiss by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 3/18/2005) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
65 STIPULATION AND ORDER resetting motions to dismiss to 5/9/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 3/18/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2005) (Entered: 03/21/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 14 of 23

04/01/2005 04/14/2005 04/15/2005 05/16/2005 05/16/2005 05/16/2005 05/16/2005
05/17/2005 05/23/2005
05/23/2005
05/24/2005 05/24/2005
05/27/2005
05/27/2005

66 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/4/04 before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Court Reporter: Katherine Wyatt. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2005) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
67 STIPULATION re 57 MOTION to Dismiss by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 4/14/2005) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
68 STIPULATION AND ORDER: Motion Hearing reset for 6/6/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 4/15/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
69 Memorandum in Opposition re 57 MOTION to Dismiss Claims by Future Class Members filed byMaria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
70 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibits in Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 6/6/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
71 Proposed Order re 70 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibits in Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
72 Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu in Support of 69 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Claims by Future Class Members filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9 (part one)# 10 Exhibit 9 (part two)# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16)(Related document(s) 69 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
73 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 70 Motion to Seal exhs 2, 4, and 7 of deposition transcripts (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2005) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
74 Reply to Opposition re 57 MOTION to Dismiss Claims by Future Class Members With Prejudice, Motion to Dismiss Existing Class Members' Claims Without Prejudice, and/or Motion to Decertify the Class filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 5/23/2005) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
75 MOTION to Seal Confidential Exhibits filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Motion Hearing set for 6/6/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark C. Walters# 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 5/23/2005) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
76 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 75 defendant's Motion to Seal exh A, attachment 3 (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2005) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
77 EXHIBIT A, excerpts from the deposition transcript of Janis A. Sposato and Attachment 3 of Exhibit F, William R. Yeats filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. "FILED UNDER SEAL" (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2005) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
78 STIPULATION re 47 Case Management Conference − Further to Extend Date for Service of New Written Discovery and to Extend Date for Deposition Discovery by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
79 MOTION to Produce Plaintiffs' Unopposed Administrative Request to File the Transcript of the Deposition of Lisa Marie Calero filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered:

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 15 of 23

05/27/2005 06/01/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005 06/06/2005 06/06/2005 06/07/2005 06/15/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005
06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005

05/27/2005)
80 Proposed Order re 79 MOTION to Produce Plaintiffs' Unopposed Administrative Request to File the Transcript of the Deposition of Lisa Marie Calero by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
81 STIPULATION AND ORDER extending discovery deadline to 6/16/2005, and extending depositions deadline to 6/30/2005; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 5/31/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2005) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
82 MOTION to Unseal Document filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
83 Declaration of Edward A. Olsen in Support of Motion to Unseal filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
84 Proposed Order by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 6/6/2005) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
85 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/6/2005 before Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 6/6/2005) re 57 MOTION to Dismiss; Motion deemed submitted; Court to issue order(Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/6/2005) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
86 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 82 Motion to Unseal Document portions of depositions (tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2005) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
87 Letter from Defendants Requesting Settlement Conference Before a Magistrate Judge. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/15/2005) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
88 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
89 MOTION to Seal Confidential Exhibits in Chen Declaration filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
90 MEMORANDUM in Support re 88 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment [public version] filed byMaria Santillan. (Related document(s) 88 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
91 Declaration of Reuben H,. Chen in Support of 88 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment (with exhibits A1−A16) filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1# 2 Exhibit A2# 3 Exhibit A3# 4 Errata A4# 5 Exhibit A5# 6 Exhibit A6# 7 Exhibit A7# 8 Exhibit A8# 9 Exhibit A9# 10 Exhibit A10# 11 Exhibit A11# 12 Exhibit A12# 13 Exhibit A13# 14 Exhibit A14# 15 Exhibit A15# 16 Exhibit A16)(Related document(s) 88 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
92 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, (exhibits B − E) filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C# 2 Exhibit D# 3 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
93 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, (exhibits F − H) filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F (part2)# 2 Exhibit G# 3 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
94 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits I − M filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I (part 2)# 2 Exhibit I−1 (filed under seal coversheet)# 3 Exhibit J (filed under seal coversheet)# 4 Exhibit K (part 1)# 5 Exhibit K (part 2)# 6 Exhibit L (filed under seal coversheet)# 7 Exhibit M (filed under seal

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 16 of 23

06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005
06/17/2005
06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005
06/24/2005 06/28/2005 07/01/2005 07/06/2005 07/07/2005

coversheet))(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
95 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits N − P filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N (part 2)# 2 Exhibit N (part 3)# 3 Exhibit O (part 1)# 4 Exhibit O (part 2)# 5 Exhibit P)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
96 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibit Q filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q (part 2)# 2 Exhibit Q (part 3)# 3 Exhibit Q (part 4))(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
97 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits R − S filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S# 2 Exhibit S−1 (part 1)# 3 Exhibit S−1 (part 2)# 4 Exhibit S−1 (part 3)# 5 Exhibit S1 (part 4))(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
98 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits T−1 − T−10 filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit T−2# 2 Exhibit T−3# 3 Exhibit T−4# 4 Exhibit T−5# 5 Exhibit T−6# 6 Exhibit T−7# 7 Exhibit T−8# 8 Exhibit T−9# 9 Exhibit T−10)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
99 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits T−11 − T−20 filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit T−12# 2 Exhibit T−13# 3 Exhibit T−14# 4 Exhibit T−15# 5 Exhibit T−16# 6 Exhibit T−17# 7 Exhibit T−18# 8 Exhibit T−19# 9 Exhibit T−20)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
100 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, Exhibits U − Z filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U# 2 Exhibit V# 3 Exhibit W# 4 Exhibit X# 5 Exhibit Y# 6 Exhibit Z)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
101 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits AA − DD filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit BB# 2 Exhibit CC# 3 Exhibit DD)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
102 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 89 plaintiff's Motion to Seal exhibits in Declaration of Reuben Chen (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2005) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
103 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 88 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment Defendants' Opposed Motion Under L.R. 7−11 For A Stay of the Briefing Schedule And to Reset the Briefing Schedule filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/23/2005) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
104 Letter from John C. Dwyer regarding Settlement Conference. (Dwyer, John) (Filed on 6/24/2005) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
105 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for a Stay of the Briefing Schedule Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and to Reset the Briefing Schedule filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 6/28/2005) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
106 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denying 57 defendants' Motion to Dismiss (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2005) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
107 Letter from Michelle S. Rhyu to Magistrate Judge Chen. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/6/2005) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
108 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Defendants' Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 17 of 23

07/07/2005 07/08/2005
07/08/2005
07/08/2005
07/08/2005 07/08/2005 07/08/2005 07/11/2005 07/12/2005 07/20/2005

Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/7/2005) (Entered: 07/07/2005)
109 ORDER − Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order. Settlement Conference set for 7/11/2005 01:00 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/7/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2005) (Entered: 07/07/2005)
110 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment, and In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
111 MOTION to Strike 98 Exhibits,, 99 Exhibits, or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions Under FRCP 56(F) and Request for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
112 Declaration of Elizabeth J. Stevens in Support of 110 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, 111 MOTION to Strike 98 Exhibits,, 99 Exhibits, or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions Under FRCP 56(F) and Request for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7)(Related document(s) 110 , 111 ) (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
113 EXHIBITS re 112 Declaration in Support,, Exhibits 8−A to 8−J filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8B# 2 Exhibit 8C# 3 Exhibit 8 D# 4 Exhibit 8 E# 5 Exhibit 8F# 6 Exhibit 8G# 7 Exhibit 8H# 8 Exhibit 8I# 9 Exhibit 8J)(Related document(s) 112 ) (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
114 EXHIBITS re 112 Declaration in Support,, Exhibits 8K to 8O, 9−13 filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8 L# 2 Exhibit 8M# 3 Exhibit 8 M# 4 Exhibit 8 O# 5 Exhibit 9# 6 Exhibit 10# 7 Exhibit 11# 8 Exhibit 12# 9 Exhibit 13)(Related document(s) 112 ) (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
115 ORDER EXCUSING ATTENDANCE AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 107 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/8/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
116 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Maria Santillan, John Ashcroft. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/11/2005) (Entered: 07/11/2005)
117 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held 7/11/2005. Case did not settle. (Date Filed: 7/12/2005). (Court Reporter N/A.) (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/12/2005) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
118 STIPULATION AND ORDER amending briefing schedule for cross motions for summary judgment; Motion Hearing reset for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before the honorable Marilyn Hall Patel; Signed by Judge William H Alsup on 7/20/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 18 of 23

07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005
07/20/2005
07/20/2005
07/25/2005 07/25/2005
07/25/2005 07/26/2005 07/26/2005 07/27/2005 07/27/2005

119 MEMORANDUM in Oppostion Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions and Request for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byPlaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
120 Reply Memorandum Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed byPlaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
121 Statement of Facts Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts filed byPlaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
122 Proposed MOTION to Strike [Proposed] Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Strike or to Permit Defendatns to Conduct Additional Depositions and Request for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
123 Proposed MOTION for Summary Judgment [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Granting Relief Under Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act and Denying Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
124 Proposed MOTION to Strike [Proposed] Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Strike or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions and Request for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
125 ORDER − Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/25/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2005) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
126 REPLY to Response to Motion re 111 MOTION to Strike 98 Exhibits,, 99 Exhibits, or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions Under FRCP 56(F) and Request for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/25/2005) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
127 REPLY to Response to Motion re 110 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/25/2005) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
128 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Chen for Settlement. Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 7/25/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2005) Modified on 7/28/2005 (emcsec, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2005)
129 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 108 defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (35) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2005) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Edward M.Chen for Settlement. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
130 CLERK'S NOTICE. Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2005 09:30 AM has been changed to 7/29/2005 01:00 PM due to counsel's unavailability. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 19 of 23

08/01/2005 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 08/02/2005
08/04/2005 08/09/2005 08/24/2005
08/26/2005 09/19/2005 09/22/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/26/2005 10/21/2005 10/21/2005 10/21/2005

131 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held 7/29/2005. Case did not settle. Further Settlement Conference scheduled for 8/30/2005 09:30 AM. (Date Filed: 8/1/2005). (Court Reporter N/A.) (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/1/2005) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
132 ORDER − Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference.Further Settlement Conference set for 8/30/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/1/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2005) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
133 STIPULATION re 132 Order, Set Hearings Stipulation and Proposed Order Amending Notice Setting Further Settlement Conference by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 8/1/2005) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
134 ORDER − Stipulation and Order Amending Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 8/30/2005 09:30 AM has been rescheduled to 8/29/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/2/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
135 CLERK'S NOTICE − Further Settlement Conference set for 8/29/2005 09:30 AM has been changed to 8/29/2005 10:30 AM. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2005) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
136 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/8/2005 before Judge Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 8/9/2005) re 88 110 Cross motions for Summary Judgment (Court Reporter James Yeomans.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2005) (Entered: 08/09/2005)
137 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment, denying defendants' motion for Summary Judgment, denying defendants' motion to Strike; SEE ORDER FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SUBMISSION DEADLINES (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2005) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
138 CLERK'S NOTICE − Further Settlement Conference set for 8/29/2005 10:30 AM has been VACATED. The Court will reschedule the Further Settlement Conference for a later date. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
139 Letter from Michelle S. Rhyu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A# 2 Exhibit Attachment B# 3 Exhibit Attachment C)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 9/19/2005) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
140 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
141 AFFIDAVIT re 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,, Declaration of Mark C. Walters by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
142 Letter from Reuben H. Chen. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
143 ORDER granting withdrawal of attorney David A Armendariz for plaintiffs; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 9/26/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2005) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
144 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Filing fee Waived. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2005) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 144 Notice of Appeal (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2005) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2005) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 20 of 23

10/24/2005
10/27/2005 11/02/2005 11/10/2005
11/16/2005 11/28/2005 11/29/2005
12/06/2005 12/16/2005 12/22/2005 01/12/2006
01/23/2006 01/30/2006 01/30/2006 02/15/2006

145 RESPONSE to re 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,, Defendants' Proposed Plan for Providing Documentation of Status to Subclasses Identified in the Court's August 24, 2005, Order by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A# 2 Exhibit Attachment B# 3 Exhibit Attachment C)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/24/2005) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
146 Letter from Michelle Rhyu. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit B)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/27/2005) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
147 Letter from Elizabeth Stevens on behalf of Defendants. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 11/2/2005) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
148 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still for proceedings held on 6/6/05 (C/R Leo Mankiewicz &8/8/05 (C/R James Yeomans). (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2005) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
149 CLERK'S NOTICE: Status Conference set for 11/29/2005 02:30 PM before the honorable Marilyn Hall Patel; (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2005) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
152 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/6/05 before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Court Reporter: Leo T. Mankiewicz. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
150 Minute Entry: Status Conference before the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 11/29/2005); Status Conference held; Counsel submit after further discussion; Standards and Practices of Biometrics and processing of residence cards discussed; Plaintiff class to submit proposed counterplan within one week; (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/29/2005) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
151 Letter from M. Rhyu responding to Court's request to submit Proposed Plan for timely issuance of documentation to class members. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1 with attachments (Plaintiffs' Proposed Plan)# 2 Appendix 2# 3 Appendix 3)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 12/6/2005) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
153 AMENDED DOCUMENT by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. −− Addendum to Defendants' Proposed Plan. (Attachments: # 1)(Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 12/16/2005) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
154 MEMORANDUM &ORDER Entering Permanent Injunction. Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 12/22/2005. (mhplc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2005) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
155 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Plaintiffs Santillan, et al., Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2006) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
156 Proposed Order Request for Entry of Final Judgment by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Final Judgment)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 1/23/2006) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
157 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING plaintiffs' request for entry of judgment 156 ; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/30/2006. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2006) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
158 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 8/8/05 before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Court Reporter: James Yeomans. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2006) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
159 ORDER STATISTICALLY DISMISSING CASE; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 2/14/2006. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2006) (Entered: 02/15/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 21 of 23

02/16/2006
02/16/2006 02/16/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006
03/01/2006 03/08/2006
03/31/2006
03/31/2006 03/31/2006 04/07/2006
04/11/2006 05/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/14/2006
10/02/2006 12/15/2006

160 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 32 Order on Motion to Certify Class 154 Order 106 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Produce, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Filing fee Waived. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2006) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 160 Notice of Appeal, (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2006) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2006) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
161 BILL OF COSTS by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
163 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still for proceedings held on 6/6/05 (Leo Mankiewicz), 8/8/05 (James Yeomans), 10/4/04 (Kathy Wyatt) &11/29/05 (Joan Columbini) before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
162 CLERK'S NOTICE to attorney John C Dwyer re submitted cost bill (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2006) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
USCA Case Number 06−15366 for 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft,, Tom Ridge,, Eduardo Aguirre,, David Still,, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
164 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 154 Order 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Filing fee Waived. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2006) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 164 Notice of Appeal, (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2006) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2006) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
USCA Acknowledgement Receipt of Amended Notice of Appeal 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft,, Tom Ridge,, Eduardo Aguirre,, David Still,, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2006) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
165 NOTICE of Change of Address by Reuben Ho−Yen Chen of Javier N. Maldonado (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/11/2006) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
166 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/29/05 before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Court Reporter: Joan Marie Columbini. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2006) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
167 BILL OF COSTS by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 6/2/2006) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
168 OBJECTIONS to re 167 Bill of Costs And Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/14/2006) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
169 NOTICE by Maria Santillan Notice of Change of Law Firm Name by Counsel for Plaintiffs (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/2/2006) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
170 ORDER of USCA as to 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. A further status conference will be held by telephone on 12/11/06 at 11:00 am. (mcl,

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 22 of 23

12/15/2006 12/27/2006 01/16/2008 02/07/2008
03/04/2008 03/26/2008 04/01/2008 04/09/2008 04/14/2008 04/14/2008
04/14/2008 04/14/2008
04/14/2008

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2006) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
171 ORDER of USCA as to 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. A further status conference will be held 12/18/06 at 11:00 am. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2006) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
172 ORDER of USCA as to 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The court will initiate a further status conference by telephone on 12/28/06 at 9:00 am. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2006) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
173 Letter from Reuben Chen and Mark Walters re Settlement. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 1/16/2008) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
174 ORDER of USCA (06−15366) that the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to reinstatement in the event the district court declines to approve the settlement as to 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by Eduardo Aguirre, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, David Still, John Ashcroft, 144 Notice of Appeal filed by Eduardo Aguirre, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, David Still, John Ashcroft, 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Eduardo Aguirre, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, David Still, John Ashcroft (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2008) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
175 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2008) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
176 Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 08−1531 CW. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/26/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2008) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
177 RESPONSE to Sua Sponte Judicial Referral Under Civ. L.R. 3−12 (Joint) by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 4/1/2008) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
178 ORDER RELATING CASE. (C 08−01531 CW to C 04−02686 MHP). Signed by Judge Marilyn H. Patel on 4/8/08. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
179 Joint MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
180 Declaration of Reuben H. Chen in Support of 179 Joint MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement filed byPlaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 179 ) (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
181 Proposed Order re 179 Joint MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
182 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23 filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
183 Proposed Order re 182 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23 by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 02/25/2009 09:08 AM PST 23 of 23

06/16/2008
06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/19/2008 07/22/2008 07/22/2008 12/04/2008

184 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/16/2008 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 6/16/2008) re (10 in 3:08−cv−01531−MHP) Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases the Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases the Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23 filed by Teresa D. Padilla, (182 in 3:04−cv−02686−MHP) Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23 filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al., (179 in 3:04−cv−02686−MHP) Joint MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al., (7 in 3:08−cv−01531−MHP) Joint MOTION Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class members of Proposed Settlement filed by Teresa D. Padilla. Fairness Hearing set for 7/21/2008 03:00 PM. (Court Reporter Jim Yeomans.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/16/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
185 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting (10) Motion to Consolidate Cases and re−certify in case 3:08−cv−01531−MHP; granting (182) Motion to Consolidate Cases and re−certify in case 3:04−cv−02686−MHP (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
186 Letter from Reuben Chen and Mark Walters re Submitting Proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
187 Proposed Order re 186 Letter Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class members of Proposed Settlement by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
188 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting joint motions for preliminary approval of settlement agreement and approval of notice to class members (7) Motion in case 3:08−cv−01531−MHP; (179) Motion in case 3:04−cv−02686−MHP (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
189 Minute Entry: Final Approval hearing held on 7/21/2008 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 7/22/2008); Order to issue (Court Reporter Belle Ball.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/22/2008) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
190 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 7/21/2008. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2008) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
191 USCA JUDGMENT as to 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Eduardo Aguirre, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, David Still, John Ashcroft (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2008) (Entered: 12/04/2008)

 
 USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

General Docket
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 06-15366

Filed: 3/3/06

Nsuit: 2890 Other stsutory actions (USdf)

Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

Appeal from: Northern District of California (San Francisco)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Case type information:
1) civil 2) US 3) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lower court information:

District: 0971-3 : CV-04-02686-MHP presiding judge: Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge court reporter: Joan Columbini, Court Reporter Date Filed: 7/6/04 Date order/judgment: 12/23/05 Date NOA filed: 2/16/05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fee status: USA: no fee required

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prior cases:
None Current cases:
None

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 1

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

MARIA SANTILLAN Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. FAX 650/857-0663 650/843-5000 [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. FAX 650/857-0663 650/843-5000 [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. FAX 650/857-0663 650/843-5000 [COR LD ret] COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH, LLP Five Palo Alto Sq. 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155

Maureen Alger 650/843-5201 [COR LD ret] COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH, LLP 5 Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306

Marisol Perez, Esq. FAX 210/224-5382

1 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

210/224-5476 Suite 300 [COR LD NTC ret] MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 110 Broadway San Antonio, TX 78205

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. FAX 210/225-3958 210/277-1603 [COR LD NTC ret] 601 Howard St. San Antonio, TX 78212

FLORA RODRIGUEZ SANTILLAN Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Maureen Alger (See above)

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 2

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

[COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

JAIME RODRIGUEZ SANTILLAN Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Maureen Alger (See above) [COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

ANGELA DESOUZA Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above)

2 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

[COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Maureen Alger (See above) [COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 3

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

MARCOS SOSA CARTAGENA Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Maureen Alger (See above) [COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

ZIBLER ISMAILI Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Maureen Alger (See above) [COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above)

3 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

[COR LD NTC ret]

ANITA LASBREY Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 4

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

Maureen Alger (See above) [COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

ZOILA LOPEZ-GONZALEZ Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Maureen Alger (See above) [COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

RAFAELA VALDEZ PARRA Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Maureen Alger (See above) [COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above)

4 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

[COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above)

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 5

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

[COR LD NTC ret]

MARIA VALDA MOHAMAD Plaintiff - Appellee

John C. Dwyer, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret] Michelle S. Rhyu, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret] Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD ret]

Maureen Alger (See above) [COR LD ret]

Marisol Perez, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

Javier N. Maldonado, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC ret]

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General
Defendant - Appellant

Edward A. Olsen, Esq. FAX 415/436-7169 415/436-6915 10th. Fl. [COR LD NTC usa] USSF - OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102

Mark C. Walters, Esq. FAX 616 9366 202-616-4857 [COR LD usa] Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq. FAX 202/307-0592 202/616-9752 [COR LD NTC usa] Stephen J. Flynn, Esq. FAX 202-616-9310 202-616-7186 [COR LD usa] Peter D. Kiesler, Esq. FAX 202/616-0592 202/616-9752 [COR LD usa] DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 6

5 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

JUSTICE Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044

Joann M. Swanson, Esq. 415/436-7200 [COR LD usa] Kevin V. Ryan FAX 415/436-7169 415/436-6915 Box 36055 [COR LD usa] U.S. Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary Dept of Homeland Security
Defendant - Appellant

Edward A. Olsen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC usa]

Mark C. Walters, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC usa] Stephen J. Flynn, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Peter D. Kiesler, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa]

Joann M. Swanson, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Kevin V. Ryan (See above) [COR LD usa]

UNITED STATES CITZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Defendant - Appellant

Edward A. Olsen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC usa]

Mark C. Walters, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC usa] Stephen J. Flynn, Esq.

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 7

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al
(See above) [COR LD usa] Peter D. Kiesler, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa]

6 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

Joann M. Swanson, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Kevin V. Ryan (See above) [COR LD usa]

EMILIO GONZALEZ, USCIS Director
Defendant - Appellant

Edward A. Olsen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC usa]

Mark C. Walters, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC usa] Stephen J. Flynn, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Peter D. Kiesler, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa]

Joann M. Swanson, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Kevin V. Ryan (See above) [COR LD usa]

DAVID STILL, USCIS San Francisco District Director
Defendant - Appellant

Edward A. Olsen, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC usa]

Mark C. Walters, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq. (See above) [COR LD NTC usa] Stephen J. Flynn, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Peter D. Kiesler, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa]

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 8

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

Joann M. Swanson, Esq. (See above) [COR LD usa] Kevin V. Ryan (See above) [COR LD usa]

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 9

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

7 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

MARIA SANTILLAN; FLORA RODRIGUEZ SANTILLAN; JAIME RODRIGUEZ SANTILLAN; ANGELA DESOUZA; MARCOS SOSA CARTAGENA; ZIBLER ISMAILI; ANITA LASBREY; ZOILA LOPEZ-GONZALEZ; RAFAELA VALDEZ PARRA; MARIA VALDA MOHAMAD

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary Dept of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES CITZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; EMILIO GONZALEZ, USCIS Director; DAVID STILL, USCIS San Francisco District Director

Defendants - Appellants

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 10

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

3/3/06

DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. CADS SENT (Y/N): n. setting schedule as follows: appellant's designation of RT is due 2/26/06,, ; appellee's designation of RT is due 3/8/06,, ; appellant shall order transcript by 3/18/06,, ; court reporter shall file transcript in DC by 4/18/06; certificate of record shall be filed by 4/25/06 ; appellant's opening brief is due 6/6/06,, ; appellees' brief is due 7/5/06,, ; appellants' reply brief is due 7/18/06,, ; [06-15366] (gar)

3/3/06

filed notice of representation of Edward Olsen, Kevin V. Ryan, Joann M. Swanson, Peter D. Kielser, Mark Walter, Stephen Flynn and Elizabeth Stephens as counsel for aplts [06-15366] (gar)

3/3/06

Filed Edward A. Olsen Civil Appeals Docketing Statement served on 2/16/06 (to CONFATT) [06-15366] [06-15366] (gar)

4/4/06

Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court (CASEFILE) (mhf)

5/3/06

Filed order CONFATT ( vs) This case is under consideration for inclusion in the Mediation Program. Within 14 days of the date of this order, csl for all parties intending to file brs are requested to inform C. Lewis Ross, Circuit Mediator, in writing, by fax at 415/556-9725, of their clients' views......The briefing schedule previously established by the crt, if any, remains in effect [06-15366] (mhf)

5/30/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) Case referred to Confatt for assessment conference only. Conference to be on 6/26/06 at 11:00 a.m. PST by telephone. The crt will initiate the telephone call & contact csl at the telephone number indicated on the attached list. If the issues raised in the pet are resolved or a mtn to remand is filed prior to the conference, pls inform the Mediation Assistant via fax at 415/556-9725 immediately. Contact info & procedures governing the Mediation Program are set out in the attached memorandum. The pbrf schedule is reset: The opn br is due 8/25/06; aples' br due 9/25/06; opt rpy br due within 14 days from svc date of the ans br [06-15366] (mhf)

6/29/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further pre-briefing conference will be held on 7/20/06 at 12:00 p.m. PST By telephone (y/n): y [06-15366] (mhf)

8 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

8/3/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) The further assessment conf orig sched for 7/20/06 is resched to 8/8/06 at 1:30pm pacific time... [06-15366] (gar)

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 11

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

8/10/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further assessment conference will be held on by phone on 9/8/06 at 12pm pacific time. Resetting schedule as follows: appellants' brief, excerpts of record are due 9/15/06,, ; appellees' brief due 10/16/06, opt reply br is due 14 days from service... [06-15366] (gar)

9/14/06

Filed order CONFATT (CLR) The court will initiate a further assessment conference by telephone on October 2, 2006, at 12:00 p.m. (Noon) PACIFIC (SF) Time. The briefing schedule previously set by the court is reset as follows: appellants shall file an opening brief on or before October 16, 2006; appellees shall file an answering brief on or before November 15, 2006; appellants may file an optional reply brief within fourteen (14) days from the service date of the answering brief. [06-15366] (hc)

10/6/06

Filed notice of change of firm name of Yvonne Waldron-Robinson. Firm name changed to Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, address & phone numbers remain unchanged. [06-15366] (mhf)

10/12/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further telephonic conference will be held on 10/18/06 at 10am pacific time... [06-15366] (gar)

10/20/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) An in person mediation/settlement conference will be held on October 30, 2006, at 10:00 am, at the US Court of Appeals, 95 Seventh Street, Suite 109, San Francisco, California [telephone (415) 556-9900].....the briefing schedule previously set by the court is modified as follows: appellants shall file an opening brief on or before January 15, 2007; appellees shall file an answering brief on or before March 16, 2007; appellants may file an optional reply brief on or before April 16, 2007..... [06-15366] (ru)

11/6/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) This crt's 10/21/06 order is AMENDED to insert the following sentence at the beginning of the order:" This appeal is selected for inclusion in the Mediation Program. During the time the appeal remains in the Mediation Program, all procedural matters should be brought to the attention of the Circuit Mediator." A status conference will be held by telephone on 11/22/06 at 10:30 a.m. Pacific (S.F.) Time. in order to participate, the participants shall call 866/306-4166 & give authorization code 1485373 to the attendant. In the interim, csl are urged to contact the Circuit Mediator if any assistance is desired. [06-15366] (mhf)

11/30/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) On or before 12/6/06, the parties shall make to the Circuit Mediator C. Lewis Ross, an oral report concerning the status of the settlement discussions [06-15366] (mhf)

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 12

9 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

11/30/06

Received Memo from Javier N. Maldonado from Texas Lawyers' Committee re: "On 2/28/06, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights closed down due to lack of funding--cannot provide any legal services. (CASEFILE) (mhf)

12/12/06

Filed order CONFATT (clr) A further status conference will be held by telephone on December 11, 2006, at 11:00 a.m. Pacific (SF) Time. In order to participate, the participants shall call and give an authorization code to the attendant. [06-15366] (hc)

12/13/06

Filed order CONFATT (clr) A further status conference will be held by telephone on December 18, 2006, at 11:00 a.m. PACIFIC (SF) Time. In order to participate, the participants shall call (866) 306-4166, and give authorization code 4344256 to the attendant. [06-15366] (hc)

12/20/06

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further status conference will will be held by telephone on 12/20/06 at 12:00 p..m. (Noon) Pacific (S.F.) time. In order to participate, the participants shall call 866/306-4166, & give authorization code 4867363 to the attendant [06-15366] (mhf)

12/22/06

Filed order CONFATT (clr) The court will initiate a further status conference by telephone on December 28, 2006, at 9:00 a.m PACIFIC (SF) Time. [06-15366] (hc)

1/3/07

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further IN-PERSON mediation/settlement conference will be held on 1/9/07 at 10:00 a.m. PST, at the USCA in SF, phone 415/556-9900. On or before 1/5/07, 10:00 a.m. PST, the parties will submit via telefax to each other & the Circuit Mediator a brief analysis (2-3 pages) of the fee issue. Participants shall be available for the entire day & shall have access to client representatives by phone during the day [06-15366] (mhf)

1/16/07

Filed order CONFATT (CLR) The briefing schedule previously set by the court is reset as follows: appellants shall file an opening brief on or before 2/14/07; appellees shall file an answering brief on or before 4/16/07; appellants may file an optional reply brief on or before 5/16/07. The court will initiate a status conference by telephone on 1/17/07 at 1:30pm PACIFIC (San Francisco) Time. [06-15366] (lee)

1/22/07

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further pre-briefing conference will be held on 2/7/07 at 1:30 By telephone (y/n): y, The briefing schedule is reset: Aplt's opn br is due 3/16/07; aple's br due 5/15/07; opt rpy br due 6/14/07 [06-15366] (mhf)

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 13

06-15366 Santillan, et al v. Gonzales, et al

2/6/07

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) The status conference originally scheduled for 2/7/07 is RESCHEDULED to 2/14/07 at 1:30 p.m. PST. [06-15366] (mhf)

3/19/07

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) The brfg schedule is reset as follows: The opn br is due 6/1/07; ans br due 7/31/07; opt rpy br due 8/28/07. The parties shall make oral status

10 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

USCA9 Docket Sheet for 06-15366

http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=06-15366&...

report to the Circ Mediator on or before 4/16/07 concerning the status of their efforts [06-15366] (mhf)

4/23/07

Rec'd notice of change of address from Javier N. Moldonado for Appellees dated 4/18/07 (Change to: 601 Howard, San Antonio, TX 78212, phone: 210/277-1603 [06-15366] (mhf)

5/31/07

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further pre-briefing conference will be held on 6/4/07 at 11:00 By telephone (y/n): y. The previously brfg schedule is reset. The opn br is due 8/1/07; aples' br due 8/31/07; opt rpy br due 9/14/07. [06-15366] (mhf)

6/20/07

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further pre-briefing conference will be held on 6/20/07 at 11:30 By telephone (y/n): y. In order to participate, the participants shall call 866/306-4166 & give authorization code 4475542 to the attendant [06-15366] (mhf)

6/25/07

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) The parties shall make an oral status report to the Circuit Mediator on or before 7/12/07, concerning the sttus of their efforts. [06-15366] (mhf)

7/23/07

Filed order CONFATT ( CLR) A further status conference will be held on 8/17/07 at 12:15 By telephone (y/n): y, setting schedule as follows: appellants' brief, excerpts of record are due 10/1/07; appellees' brief due 10/31/07,, ; appellants' reply brief due 11/14/07 [06-15366] (mhf)

Docket as of July 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Page 14

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

08/10/2007 08:51:35

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

clearinghouse

Description:

dkt report

Case Number:

06-15366

Billable Pages:

14

Cost:

1.12

11 of 11

8/10/2007 10:48 AM

 
 NOTICE OF FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CLASS ACTION CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF DOCUMENTATION TO INDIVIDUALS
GRANTED PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
SANTILLAN, ET AL. v. MUKASEY, ET AL., No. C 04-2686-MHP; AND PADILLA, ET AL. V. RIDGE, ET AL., No. C 08-1531-MHP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIV.
TO: All persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident (LPR) status by the U.S. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), through the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and to whom the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not issued evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or to whom USCIS does not issue such evidence if the person is granted LPR status in the future.
You are hereby notified that at a fairness hearing held on July 21, 2008, the Honorable Marilyn H. Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, finally approved a settlement of the claims that have been brought on your behalf in this class action.
Background
The class action lawsuit Santillan, et al. v. Mukasey, et al., No. C 04-2686 MPH (Santillan) was filed on July 6, 2004, to challenge alleged delays by USCIS in issuing documentation of status (e.g., a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) or green card, or a temporary document) to individuals who had been granted, or would be granted, LPR status by immigration judges or by the BIA. The Court preliminarily approved the parties’ proposed settlement agreement at a hearing on June 16, 2008 and issued a signed order on June 19, 2008. Following distribution of notice to the class of the fairness hearing scheduled for July 21, 2008, the Court approved the settlement agreement and vacated its earlier injunction of December 22, 2005. The settlement agreement incorporates the class certified in Padilla, et al. v. Ridge, et al., No. C 08-1531 MHP (Padilla). Therefore, the agreement applies to all members, present and future, of the combined Santillan and Padilla lawsuits. This Notice and the agreement do not apply to individuals who were granted their LPR status by USCIS, by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Description of Approved Settlement Agreement
The following description is only a summary of the key points in the settlement agreement. Information on obtaining a copy of the full agreement is provided after this summary. The Effective Date of the agreement is July 22, 2008, the date that the district court approved it and vacated its earlier permanent injunction. The duration of the settlement agreement will be for two (2) years from the Effective Date.
The key terms of the settlement agreement provide that any class member who is granted adjustment to LPR status in Immigration Court or BIA proceedings will be given a written description of the procedures for obtaining documentation of status. Except in certain cases involving national security or public safety, USCIS will issue each class member his or her Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) within thirty (30) business days of the class member’s attendance at an appropriately scheduled appointment at the local USCIS office, unless biometrics are required. Where biometrics are required, USCIS will provide an appointment at a USCIS Application Support Center within 15 days, and the Permanent Resident Card will be produced within 15 business days of that appointment. In certain emergency travel and work circumstances, a class member may seek issuance of temporary status documentation. DHS may withhold documentation of LPR status from a class member beyond any of the time periods stated in the agreement, where Defendants possess specific and particular information that the class member may be a risk to national security or public safety. However, any such decision to withhold documentation must be certified in writing by the USCIS Director or Deputy Director.

If a class member does not receive his or her Permanent Resident Card within the time periods described above, he or she may contact a USCIS national Point of Contact (POC). USCIS then will have twenty-one (21) business days to inquire into the status of the class member’s documentation and to issue the Permanent Resident Card. If the class member does not receive the card after the 21 days, he or she may go to USCIS and will be issued temporary documentation valid for at least six months. USCIS will provide class counsel with quarterly reports listing class members who have contacted the national POC but who still have not been issued their LPR status documentation.

Where a class member has exhausted all of the time periods and procedures for issuance of LPR status documentation required by the agreement, and still has not received such documentation, he or she may pursue an individual claim for documentation in any court with jurisdiction. The agreement also provides for class counsel to bring class claims to enforce the agreement under specified conditions.

The Court has fully vacated its permanent injunction order of December 22, 2005. The Court’s August 24, 2005, summary judgment order shall not be vacated, but as the settlement agreement states, that decision cannot be used to show that a fact or claim that was in dispute in this lawsuit has been decided previously.

The agreement further provides that, in consideration of the other provisions in the agreement, class members release all Defendants from all Settled Claims. For a complete description of the releases and settled claims, you should review the final settlement agreement. Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing, fault or liability, nor may their agreement to the preservation of the August 24, 2005, summary judgment decision be construed as Defendants’ acceptance of any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law contained in that decision. The settlement agreement cannot be used against Defendants as evidence of any presumption, concession or admission of any liability, negligence, fault or wrongdoing in future actions.

For Further Information:

THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE AGREEMENT. TO UNDERSTAND IT FULLY, YOU SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT. Copies of the settlement may be obtained from: 1) The USCIS website at www.uscis.gov (click on Laws & Regulations and then click Legal Settlement Notices); 2) the EOIR website at www.usdoj.gov/eoir; or 3) the ICE website at www.ice.gov. Copies are also being distributed to immigration assistance providers listed on the EOIR Roster of Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives (see 8 C.F.R. §§ 292 and 1292); and to immigration assistance providers listed on the Pro Bono Program section of the EOIR website.

Attorneys’ Names and Addresses for Defendants and Plaintiffs:

For the Plaintiffs: Michelle S. Rhyu Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 650-843-5000

For the Defendants: Mark Walters Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Department of Justice P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-616-4857

2

 
 Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 1 of 23
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,REFSET−EMC,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04−cv−02686−MHP

Santillan et al v. Ashcroft et al Assigned to: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel Relate Case Case: 3:08−cv−01531−MHP Case in other court: 06−15366
0 Cause: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board Plaintiff
Maria Santillan

Date Filed: 07/06/2004 Date Terminated: 02/15/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by David Anton Armendariz Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law of Texas 118 Broadway Suite 502 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−277−1603 Fax: 210−225−3958 Email: darmendariz@txlawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Javier Nyrup Maldonado Law Office of Javier N. Maldonado 601 Howard San Antonio, TX 78212 210−277−1603 Fax: 210−225−3958 Email: jmaldonado7@satx.rr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Dwyer Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 650−843−5000 Fax: 650−849−7400 Email: dwyerjc@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen P. Alger Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306−2155 650−843−5000 Email: malger@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle S. Rhyu Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304−1130 650−843−5000 Fax: 650−849−7400

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 2 of 23

Email: mrhyu@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 650−843−5480 Fax: 650−849−7400 Email: rchen@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 110 Broadway Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: mperez@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 110 Broadway Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: nperales@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Flora Rodriguez Santillan

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 3 of 23

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jaime Rodriguez Santillan

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Angela Desouza

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 4 of 23

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Marcos Sosa Cartagena

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 5 of 23

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Zibler Ismaili

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anita Lasbrey

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 6 of 23

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rafaela Valdez Parra

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 7 of 23

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maria Valda Mohamad

represented by David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen P. Alger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 8 of 23

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.

represented by Javier Nyrup Maldonado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Dwyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle S. Rhyu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reuben Ho−Yen Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John Ashcroft Attorney General of the United States
Defendant Tom Ridge Secretary for Department of Homeland Security

represented by Edward A. Olsen United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−436−6915 Fax: 415−436−6927 Email: edward.olsen@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 450 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616−9752 Fax: (202) 305−7000 Email: Elizabeth.Stevens@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 9 of 23

Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant Eduardo Aguirre USCIS Director
Defendant David Still USCIS San Francisco District Director

represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/06/2004
07/06/2004 07/06/2004 07/06/2004
07/06/2004
07/09/2004 07/09/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT /issued summons against Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ( Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 3361495.). Filed by Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Angela Desouza, Zibler Ismaili, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Maria Valda Mohamad, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Maria Santillan. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/8/2004 (ga, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2004)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 10/27/2004. Case Management Conference set for 11/3/2004 10:30 AM.. Signed by Judge James Larson on 7/6/04. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
3 MOTION for attorney Javier Maldonado leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Fee Paid) filed by Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Angela Desouza, Zibler Ismaili, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Maria Valda Mohamad, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Maria Santillan. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
4 MOTION for attorney David A. Armendariz leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Fee Paid) filed by Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Angela Desouza, Zibler Ismaili, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Maria Valda Mohamad, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Maria Santillan. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2004) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
5 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2004 09:30 AM. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/9/2004) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
6 PROPOSED ORDER 5 Certify Class filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2004 09:30 AM. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/9/2004) Modified on 7/12/2004 (ga, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 10 of 23

07/09/2004
07/12/2004 07/12/2004 07/16/2004 07/16/2004 07/16/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004 07/21/2004
07/22/2004 07/22/2004
07/23/2004 07/23/2004 08/09/2004
08/16/2004

7 Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu in Support of 5 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit Exhibit P)(Related document(s) 5 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/9/2004) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
8 ORDER by Judge James Larson granting attorney Javier N. Maldonado 3 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2004) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
9 ORDER by Judge James Larson granting attorney David A. Armendariz 4 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2004) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Santillan re 8 Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice, 9 Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice Granted (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/16/2004) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
11 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 7/16/2004) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 7/16/2004) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Santillan re 1 Complaint,,, 2 ADR Scheduling Order (POS J. Ashcroft) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Santillan re 1 Complaint,,, 2 ADR Scheduling Order (POS T. Ridge) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Santillan (POS D. Still) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth J. Stevens (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
17 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Marilyn H. Patel for all further proceedings. Judge James Larson no longer assigned to case. Signed by Executive Committee on 7/21/04. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2004) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
18 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 8/30/2004 02:00 PM. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/22/2004) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
19 Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu in Support of 18 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Errata C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P# 17 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 18 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/22/2004) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
20 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2004) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
21 NOTICE by Maria Santillan of Pendency of Other Action Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3−13 (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/23/2004) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
22 Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sposato Declaration# 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/9/2004) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
23 Reply Memorandum re 18 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Rhyu Supplemental Declaration)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 8/16/2004) (Entered: 08/16/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 11 of 23

08/27/2004 08/30/2004 09/07/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004
10/01/2004
10/01/2004 10/05/2004
10/12/2004 10/14/2004 10/14/2004
10/15/2004 10/18/2004 10/19/2004 10/20/2004

24 Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu in Support of 23 , 18 , 19 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Second Supplemental) filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit V# 2 Exhibit W# 3 Exhibit X# 4 Exhibit Y)(Related document(s) 23 , 18 , 19 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 8/27/2004) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
25 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing to 10/4/2004 02:00 PM. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2004) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
26 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint For Mandamus, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/7/2004) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
27 MOTION to for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 1 Complaint,, filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2004 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 9/24/2004) Modified on 9/27/2004 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2004)
28 EXHIBITS to Motion 27 for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2004 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 9/24/2004) Modified on 9/27/2004 (br, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/27/2004 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2004)
29 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification# 2 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibit C)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/1/2004) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
30 Memorandum in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Z)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/1/2004) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
31 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/4/2004 before Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 10/5/2004) re 5 18 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Maria Santillan; MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Responses due by 10/15/2004. Replies due by 10/20/2004. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2004 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/5/2004) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
32 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 18 Motion to Certify Class (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2004) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
33 STIPULATION to Continue Initial Case Management Conference by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/14/2004) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
34 STIPULATION to Plaintiffs' Filing an Amended Complaint And For Extension of Time to File Answer or Other Responsive Pleading and Order Thereon by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/14/2004) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
35 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER filed by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/15/2004) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
36 STIPULATION AND ORDER:Case Management Conference reset for 11/8/2004 04:00 PM; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/15/2004. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2004) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
37 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing: Motion Hearing set for 10/28/2004 09:00 PM. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2004) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
38 STIPULATION AND ORDER granting filing of amended complaint, extending time to and including 11/8/2004 for defendants to file a responsive pleading, and vacating 27 Motion to Amend/Correct; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel (awb,

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 12 of 23

10/20/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/29/2004
10/29/2004 11/01/2004 11/02/2004 11/05/2004 11/08/2004 11/09/2004 11/15/2004 11/18/2004 12/21/2004
12/21/2004
12/21/2004
12/21/2004

COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2004) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
39 STIPULATION AND ORDER resetting Case Management Conference for 11/8/2004 04:00 PM; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/15/2004. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2004) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
40 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/27/2004) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
41 ****ERRONEOUS ENTRY, DUPLICATE ENTRY PLEASE SEE DOCKET NO. 40**** ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/27/2004) Modified on 10/29/2004 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/27/2004)
42 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 43 . *** STIPULATION to Dismiss Seven Named Plaintiffs by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/29/2004) Modified on 11/1/2004 (br, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2004)
43 STIPULATION to Dismiss Seven Named Plaintiffs CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 42 by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
44 ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 11/4/04 at 3:00 p.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2004) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
45 ORDER dismissing seven named plaintiffs;Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/1/2004. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2004) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
ADR Phone Conference by RWS (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2004) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
46 ANSWER to Complaint (Amended) by Eduardo Aguirre, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 11/8/2004) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
47 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 11/8/2004 before Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 11/9/2004) (Court Reporter Catherine Luciano.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/9/2004) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
48 STIPULATION Stipulated Protective Order by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 11/15/2004) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
49 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER;Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/17/2004. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2004) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
50 MOTION for Admission of Attorney Nina Perales to appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2004) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
Received Order re 50 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2004) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
51 MOTION for Admission of Attorney Marisol Perez to appear in Pro Hac Vice filed by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2004) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
Received Order re 51 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 13 of 23

12/28/2004 12/28/2004 01/06/2005 01/31/2005 02/02/2005 02/11/2005
02/18/2005
02/23/2005
02/23/2005 03/01/2005 03/04/2005
03/09/2005 03/18/2005 03/21/2005 04/01/2005 04/14/2005

Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2004) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
52 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 50 plaintiffs' Motion for attorney Nina Perales to appear Pro Hac Vice (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2004) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
53 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 51 plaintiffs' Motion for attorney Marisol Perez to appear Pro Hac Vice (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2004) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
54 NOTICE of Appearance by Nina Perales Marisol Perez, Tom Saenz, Hector Villagra, Victor Rodriguez and Victor Viramontes (Perales, Nina) (Filed on 1/6/2005) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
55 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS NAMED PLAINTIFF YI QIANG REN by Flora Rodriguez Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 1/31/2005) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
56 STIPULATION AND ORDER dismissing plaintiff Yi Qiang Ren; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/31/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2005) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2005 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1)(Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 2/11/2005) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
58 MOTION for Discovery Stay Pending Decision On Motion To Dismiss filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notices of Depositions (2)# 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Walters, Mark) (Filed on 2/18/2005) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
59 Memorandum in Opposition re 58 MOTION for Discovery Stay Pending Decision On Motion To Dismiss Based on New Regulation filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A# 2 Exhibit Attachment B# 3 Exhibit Attachment C)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 2/23/2005) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
60 Proposed Order re 59 Memorandum in Opposition, to Stay Discovery by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 2/23/2005) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
61 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denying 58 Motion defendants' motion for stay of Discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss; (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
62 STIPULATION re 57 MOTION to Dismiss Claims by Future Class Members With Prejudice Due to New Regulation, Motion to Dismiss Existing Class Members' Claims Without Prejudice And/or Motion to Decertify The Class by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 3/4/2005) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
63 STIPULATION AND ORDER 57 MOTION to Dismiss reset for 4/18/2005 02:00 PM;.(awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2005) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
64 STIPULATION re 57 MOTION to Dismiss by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 3/18/2005) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
65 STIPULATION AND ORDER resetting motions to dismiss to 5/9/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 3/18/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2005) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
66 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/4/04 before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Court Reporter: Katherine Wyatt. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2005) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
67 STIPULATION re 57 MOTION to Dismiss by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens,

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 14 of 23

04/15/2005 05/16/2005 05/16/2005 05/16/2005 05/16/2005
05/17/2005 05/23/2005
05/23/2005 05/24/2005 05/24/2005 05/27/2005 05/27/2005 05/27/2005

Elizabeth) (Filed on 4/14/2005) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
68 STIPULATION AND ORDER: Motion Hearing reset for 6/6/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 4/15/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
69 Memorandum in Opposition re 57 MOTION to Dismiss Claims by Future Class Members filed byMaria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
70 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibits in Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 6/6/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
71 Proposed Order re 70 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibits in Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
72 Declaration of Michelle S. Rhyu in Support of 69 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Claims by Future Class Members filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9 (part one)# 10 Exhibit 9 (part two)# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16)(Related document(s) 69 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
73 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 70 Motion to Seal exhs 2, 4, and 7 of deposition transcripts (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2005) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
74 Reply to Opposition re 57 MOTION to Dismiss Claims by Future Class Members With Prejudice, Motion to Dismiss Existing Class Members' Claims Without Prejudice, and/or Motion to Decertify the Class filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 5/23/2005) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
75 MOTION to Seal Confidential Exhibits filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Motion Hearing set for 6/6/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark C. Walters# 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 5/23/2005) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
76 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 75 defendant's Motion to Seal exh A, attachment 3 (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2005) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
77 EXHIBIT A, excerpts from the deposition transcript of Janis A. Sposato and Attachment 3 of Exhibit F, William R. Yeats filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. "FILED UNDER SEAL" (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2005) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
78 STIPULATION re 47 Case Management Conference − Further to Extend Date for Service of New Written Discovery and to Extend Date for Deposition Discovery by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
79 MOTION to Produce Plaintiffs' Unopposed Administrative Request to File the Transcript of the Deposition of Lisa Marie Calero filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
80 Proposed Order re 79 MOTION to Produce Plaintiffs' Unopposed Administrative Request to File the Transcript of the Deposition of Lisa Marie Calero by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered: 05/27/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 15 of 23

06/01/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005 06/06/2005 06/06/2005 06/07/2005 06/15/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005
06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005
06/17/2005

81 STIPULATION AND ORDER extending discovery deadline to 6/16/2005, and extending depositions deadline to 6/30/2005; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 5/31/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2005) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
82 MOTION to Unseal Document filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
83 Declaration of Edward A. Olsen in Support of Motion to Unseal filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
84 Proposed Order by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 6/6/2005) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
85 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/6/2005 before Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 6/6/2005) re 57 MOTION to Dismiss; Motion deemed submitted; Court to issue order(Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/6/2005) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
86 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 82 Motion to Unseal Document portions of depositions (tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2005) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
87 Letter from Defendants Requesting Settlement Conference Before a Magistrate Judge. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/15/2005) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
88 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
89 MOTION to Seal Confidential Exhibits in Chen Declaration filed by Maria Santillan. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
90 MEMORANDUM in Support re 88 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment [public version] filed byMaria Santillan. (Related document(s) 88 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
91 Declaration of Reuben H,. Chen in Support of 88 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment (with exhibits A1−A16) filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1# 2 Exhibit A2# 3 Exhibit A3# 4 Errata A4# 5 Exhibit A5# 6 Exhibit A6# 7 Exhibit A7# 8 Exhibit A8# 9 Exhibit A9# 10 Exhibit A10# 11 Exhibit A11# 12 Exhibit A12# 13 Exhibit A13# 14 Exhibit A14# 15 Exhibit A15# 16 Exhibit A16)(Related document(s) 88 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
92 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, (exhibits B − E) filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C# 2 Exhibit D# 3 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
93 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, (exhibits F − H) filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F (part2)# 2 Exhibit G# 3 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
94 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits I − M filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I (part 2)# 2 Exhibit I−1 (filed under seal coversheet)# 3 Exhibit J (filed under seal coversheet)# 4 Exhibit K (part 1)# 5 Exhibit K (part 2)# 6 Exhibit L (filed under seal coversheet)# 7 Exhibit M (filed under seal coversheet))(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
95 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits N − P filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N (part 2)# 2 Exhibit N (part 3)# 3 Exhibit O (part 1)# 4 Exhibit O (part 2)# 5 Exhibit P)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 16 of 23

06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005
06/17/2005
06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005
06/24/2005 06/28/2005 07/01/2005 07/06/2005 07/07/2005
07/07/2005

6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
96 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibit Q filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q (part 2)# 2 Exhibit Q (part 3)# 3 Exhibit Q (part 4))(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
97 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits R − S filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S# 2 Exhibit S−1 (part 1)# 3 Exhibit S−1 (part 2)# 4 Exhibit S−1 (part 3)# 5 Exhibit S1 (part 4))(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
98 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits T−1 − T−10 filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit T−2# 2 Exhibit T−3# 3 Exhibit T−4# 4 Exhibit T−5# 5 Exhibit T−6# 6 Exhibit T−7# 7 Exhibit T−8# 8 Exhibit T−9# 9 Exhibit T−10)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
99 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits T−11 − T−20 filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit T−12# 2 Exhibit T−13# 3 Exhibit T−14# 4 Exhibit T−15# 5 Exhibit T−16# 6 Exhibit T−17# 7 Exhibit T−18# 8 Exhibit T−19# 9 Exhibit T−20)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
100 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, Exhibits U − Z filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U# 2 Exhibit V# 3 Exhibit W# 4 Exhibit X# 5 Exhibit Y# 6 Exhibit Z)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
101 EXHIBITS re 91 Declaration in Support,, exhibits AA − DD filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit BB# 2 Exhibit CC# 3 Exhibit DD)(Related document(s) 91 ) (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
102 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 89 plaintiff's Motion to Seal exhibits in Declaration of Reuben Chen (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2005) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
103 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 88 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment Defendants' Opposed Motion Under L.R. 7−11 For A Stay of the Briefing Schedule And to Reset the Briefing Schedule filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/23/2005) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
104 Letter from John C. Dwyer regarding Settlement Conference. (Dwyer, John) (Filed on 6/24/2005) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
105 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for a Stay of the Briefing Schedule Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and to Reset the Briefing Schedule filed byMaria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 6/28/2005) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
106 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denying 57 defendants' Motion to Dismiss (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2005) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
107 Letter from Michelle S. Rhyu to Magistrate Judge Chen. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/6/2005) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
108 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Defendants' Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/7/2005) (Entered: 07/07/2005)
109 ORDER − Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order. Settlement Conference set for 7/11/2005 01:00 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/7/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 17 of 23

07/08/2005
07/08/2005
07/08/2005
07/08/2005 07/08/2005 07/08/2005 07/11/2005 07/12/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005

(Entered: 07/07/2005)
110 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment, and In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
111 MOTION to Strike 98 Exhibits,, 99 Exhibits, or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions Under FRCP 56(F) and Request for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
112 Declaration of Elizabeth J. Stevens in Support of 110 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, 111 MOTION to Strike 98 Exhibits,, 99 Exhibits, or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions Under FRCP 56(F) and Request for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7)(Related document(s) 110 , 111 ) (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
113 EXHIBITS re 112 Declaration in Support,, Exhibits 8−A to 8−J filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8B# 2 Exhibit 8C# 3 Exhibit 8 D# 4 Exhibit 8 E# 5 Exhibit 8F# 6 Exhibit 8G# 7 Exhibit 8H# 8 Exhibit 8I# 9 Exhibit 8J)(Related document(s) 112 ) (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
114 EXHIBITS re 112 Declaration in Support,, Exhibits 8K to 8O, 9−13 filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8 L# 2 Exhibit 8M# 3 Exhibit 8 M# 4 Exhibit 8 O# 5 Exhibit 9# 6 Exhibit 10# 7 Exhibit 11# 8 Exhibit 12# 9 Exhibit 13)(Related document(s) 112 ) (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
115 ORDER EXCUSING ATTENDANCE AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 107 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/8/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2005) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
116 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Maria Santillan, John Ashcroft. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/11/2005) (Entered: 07/11/2005)
117 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held 7/11/2005. Case did not settle. (Date Filed: 7/12/2005). (Court Reporter N/A.) (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/12/2005) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
118 STIPULATION AND ORDER amending briefing schedule for cross motions for summary judgment; Motion Hearing reset for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before the honorable Marilyn Hall Patel; Signed by Judge William H Alsup on 7/20/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
119 MEMORANDUM in Oppostion Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions and Request for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byPlaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 18 of 23

07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005
07/20/2005
07/20/2005
07/25/2005 07/25/2005
07/25/2005 07/26/2005 07/26/2005 07/27/2005 07/27/2005 08/01/2005 08/01/2005

120 Reply Memorandum Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed byPlaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
121 Statement of Facts Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts filed byPlaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
122 Proposed MOTION to Strike [Proposed] Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Strike or to Permit Defendatns to Conduct Additional Depositions and Request for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
123 Proposed MOTION for Summary Judgment [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Declaring Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Granting Relief Under Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act and Denying Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
124 Proposed MOTION to Strike [Proposed] Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Strike or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions and Request for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 8/8/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
125 ORDER − Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/25/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2005) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
126 REPLY to Response to Motion re 111 MOTION to Strike 98 Exhibits,, 99 Exhibits, or to Permit Defendants to Conduct Additional Depositions Under FRCP 56(F) and Request for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/25/2005) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
127 REPLY to Response to Motion re 110 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byJohn Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/25/2005) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
128 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Chen for Settlement. Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 7/25/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2005) Modified on 7/28/2005 (emcsec, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2005)
129 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 108 defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (35) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2005) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Edward M.Chen for Settlement. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
130 CLERK'S NOTICE. Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2005 09:30 AM has been changed to 7/29/2005 01:00 PM due to counsel's unavailability. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
131 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held 7/29/2005. Case did not settle. Further Settlement Conference scheduled for 8/30/2005 09:30 AM. (Date Filed: 8/1/2005). (Court Reporter N/A.) (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/1/2005) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
132 ORDER − Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference.Further Settlement Conference set for 8/30/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 19 of 23

08/01/2005 08/02/2005
08/04/2005 08/09/2005
08/24/2005
08/26/2005 09/19/2005 09/22/2005 09/23/2005
09/23/2005 09/26/2005 10/21/2005
10/21/2005 10/21/2005 10/24/2005

on 8/1/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2005) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
133 STIPULATION re 132 Order, Set Hearings Stipulation and Proposed Order Amending Notice Setting Further Settlement Conference by Maria Santillan. (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 8/1/2005) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
134 ORDER − Stipulation and Order Amending Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 8/30/2005 09:30 AM has been rescheduled to 8/29/2005 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/2/2005. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
135 CLERK'S NOTICE − Further Settlement Conference set for 8/29/2005 09:30 AM has been changed to 8/29/2005 10:30 AM. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2005) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
136 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/8/2005 before Judge Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 8/9/2005) re 88 110 Cross motions for Summary Judgment (Court Reporter James Yeomans.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2005) (Entered: 08/09/2005)
137 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment, denying defendants' motion for Summary Judgment, denying defendants' motion to Strike; SEE ORDER FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SUBMISSION DEADLINES (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2005) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
138 CLERK'S NOTICE − Further Settlement Conference set for 8/29/2005 10:30 AM has been VACATED. The Court will reschedule the Further Settlement Conference for a later date. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
139 Letter from Michelle S. Rhyu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A# 2 Exhibit Attachment B# 3 Exhibit Attachment C)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 9/19/2005) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
140 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Maria Santillan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 9/22/2005) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
141 AFFIDAVIT re 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,, Declaration of Mark C. Walters by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
142 Letter from Reuben H. Chen. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
143 ORDER granting withdrawal of attorney David A Armendariz for plaintiffs; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 9/26/2005. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2005) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
144 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Filing fee Waived. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2005) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 144 Notice of Appeal (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2005) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2005) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
145 RESPONSE to re 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,, Defendants' Proposed Plan for Providing Documentation of Status to Subclasses Identified in the Court's August 24, 2005, Order by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A# 2 Exhibit Attachment B# 3 Exhibit Attachment C)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 10/24/2005) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 20 of 23

10/27/2005 11/02/2005 11/10/2005
11/16/2005 11/28/2005 11/29/2005
12/06/2005 12/16/2005 12/22/2005 01/12/2006
01/23/2006 01/30/2006 01/30/2006 02/15/2006 02/16/2006

146 Letter from Michelle Rhyu. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit B)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/27/2005) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
147 Letter from Elizabeth Stevens on behalf of Defendants. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 11/2/2005) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
148 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still for proceedings held on 6/6/05 (C/R Leo Mankiewicz & 8/8/05 (C/R James Yeomans). (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2005) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
149 CLERK'S NOTICE: Status Conference set for 11/29/2005 02:30 PM before the honorable Marilyn Hall Patel; (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2005) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
152 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/6/05 before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Court Reporter: Leo T. Mankiewicz. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
150 Minute Entry: Status Conference before the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 11/29/2005); Status Conference held; Counsel submit after further discussion; Standards and Practices of Biometrics and processing of residence cards discussed; Plaintiff class to submit proposed counterplan within one week; (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/29/2005) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
151 Letter from M. Rhyu responding to Court's request to submit Proposed Plan for timely issuance of documentation to class members. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1 with attachments (Plaintiffs' Proposed Plan)# 2 Appendix 2# 3 Appendix 3)(Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 12/6/2005) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
153 AMENDED DOCUMENT by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. −− Addendum to Defendants' Proposed Plan. (Attachments: # 1)(Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 12/16/2005) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
154 MEMORANDUM & ORDER Entering Permanent Injunction. Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 12/22/2005. (mhplc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2005) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
155 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Angela Desouza, Marcos Sosa Cartagena, Zibler Ismaili, Maria Santillan, Anita Lasbrey, Zoila Lopez−Gonzalez, Rafaela Valdez Parra, Plaintiffs Santillan, et al., Maria Valda Mohamad, Flora Rodriguez Santillan (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2006) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
156 Proposed Order Request for Entry of Final Judgment by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Final Judgment)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 1/23/2006) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
157 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING plaintiffs' request for entry of judgment 156 ; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/30/2006. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2006) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
158 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 8/8/05 before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Court Reporter: James Yeomans. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2006) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
159 ORDER STATISTICALLY DISMISSING CASE; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 2/14/2006. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2006) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
160 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 32 Order on Motion to Certify Class 154 Order 106 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Produce, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Filing fee Waived. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2006) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 21 of 23

02/16/2006 02/16/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006
03/01/2006 03/08/2006
03/31/2006
03/31/2006 03/31/2006 04/07/2006
04/11/2006 05/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/14/2006
10/02/2006 12/15/2006
12/15/2006

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 160 Notice of Appeal, (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2006) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2006) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
161 BILL OF COSTS by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
163 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still for proceedings held on 6/6/05 (Leo Mankiewicz), 8/8/05 (James Yeomans), 10/4/04 (Kathy Wyatt) & 11/29/05 (Joan Columbini) before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
162 CLERK'S NOTICE to attorney John C Dwyer re submitted cost bill (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2006) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
USCA Case Number 06−15366 for 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft,, Tom Ridge,, Eduardo Aguirre,, David Still,, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2006) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
164 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 154 Order 137 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. Filing fee Waived. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2006) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 164 Notice of Appeal, (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2006) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2006) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
USCA Acknowledgement Receipt of Amended Notice of Appeal 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft,, Tom Ridge,, Eduardo Aguirre,, David Still,, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2006) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
165 NOTICE of Change of Address by Reuben Ho−Yen Chen of Javier N. Maldonado (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/11/2006) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
166 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/29/05 before Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Court Reporter: Joan Marie Columbini. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2006) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
167 BILL OF COSTS by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 6/2/2006) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
168 OBJECTIONS to re 167 Bill of Costs And Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/14/2006) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
169 NOTICE by Maria Santillan Notice of Change of Law Firm Name by Counsel for Plaintiffs (Rhyu, Michelle) (Filed on 10/2/2006) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
170 ORDER of USCA as to 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. A further status conference will be held by telephone on 12/11/06 at 11:00 am. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2006) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
171 ORDER of USCA as to 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. A further status conference will be held 12/18/06 at 11:00 am. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2006) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 22 of 23

12/27/2006 01/16/2008 02/07/2008
03/04/2008 03/26/2008 04/01/2008 04/09/2008 04/14/2008 04/14/2008
04/14/2008 04/14/2008
04/14/2008
06/16/2008

172 ORDER of USCA as to 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The court will initiate a further status conference by telephone on 12/28/06 at 9:00 am. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2006) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
173 Letter from Reuben Chen and Mark Walters re Settlement. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 1/16/2008) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
174 ORDER of USCA (06−15366) that the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to reinstatement in the event the district court declines to approve the settlement as to 160 Notice of Appeal, filed by Eduardo Aguirre, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, David Still, John Ashcroft, 144 Notice of Appeal filed by Eduardo Aguirre, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, David Still, John Ashcroft, 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Eduardo Aguirre, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, David Still, John Ashcroft (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2008) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
175 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2008) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
176 Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 08−1531 CW. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/26/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2008) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
177 RESPONSE to Sua Sponte Judicial Referral Under Civ. L.R. 3−12 (Joint) by John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, David Still. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 4/1/2008) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
178 ORDER RELATING CASE. (C 08−01531 CW to C 04−02686 MHP). Signed by Judge Marilyn H. Patel on 4/8/08. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
179 Joint MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
180 Declaration of Reuben H. Chen in Support of 179 Joint MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement filed byPlaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 179 ) (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
181 Proposed Order re 179 Joint MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
182 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23 filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
183 Proposed Order re 182 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23 by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
184 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/16/2008 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 6/16/2008) re (10 in 3:08−cv−01531−MHP) Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases the Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases the Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23 filed by Teresa D. Padilla, (182 in 3:04−cv−02686−MHP) Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of

Case: 3:04-cv-2686 As of: 03/19/2018 01:24 PM PDT 23 of 23

06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/19/2008 07/22/2008 07/22/2008 12/04/2008

Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases The Santillan and Padilla Cases and to Re−Certify The Class Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and 23 filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al., (179 in 3:04−cv−02686−MHP) Joint MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class Members of Proposed Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al., (7 in 3:08−cv−01531−MHP) Joint MOTION Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class members of Proposed Settlement filed by Teresa D. Padilla. Fairness Hearing set for 7/21/2008 03:00 PM. (Court Reporter Jim Yeomans.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/16/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
185 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting (10) Motion to Consolidate Cases and re−certify in case 3:08−cv−01531−MHP; granting (182) Motion to Consolidate Cases and re−certify in case 3:04−cv−02686−MHP (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
186 Letter from Reuben Chen and Mark Walters re Submitting Proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement. (Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
187 Proposed Order re 186 Letter Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Approval of Notice to Class members of Proposed Settlement by Plaintiffs Santillan, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B)(Chen, Reuben) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
188 ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting joint motions for preliminary approval of settlement agreement and approval of notice to class members (7) Motion in case 3:08−cv−01531−MHP; (179) Motion in case 3:04−cv−02686−MHP (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
189 Minute Entry: Final Approval hearing held on 7/21/2008 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 7/22/2008); Order to issue (Court Reporter Belle Ball.) (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/22/2008) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
190 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 7/21/2008. (awb, COURT−STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2008) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
191 USCA JUDGMENT as to 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Eduardo Aguirre, Tom Ridge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, David Still, John Ashcroft (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2008) (Entered: 12/04/2008)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARIA SANTILLAN, et al.,

I Case No. C 04-2686-MHP

Plaintiffs, VS.

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE

ALBERT0 R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of Homeland Security; THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; EMILIO GONZALEZ, USCIS Director; DAVID STILL, USCIS San Francisco District Director,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter, on behalf of themselves, the Class and all Class

Members (as defined below), and Defendants Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General; Michael

Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

("USCIS"); Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, and David Still, District Director, USCIS San

Francisco.District (together, "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, hereby enter into this

Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and Release (the "Stipulation"), as of the date beneath

Defendants' counsel's signature, subject to the approval of the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

WHEREAS:

(A) Plaintiffs, Maria Santillan, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan and others filed suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendants,

the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland

Security, the United States Citizenshipl and Immigration Services

the Director of the

/ USCIS, and the San Francisco USCIS District Director in the U.S. Distri t Court for the Northern \ STIPULATIOANND AGREEMENOTF SETTLEMENT '. '-, AND RELEASE \\

District of California on July 6, 2004, seeking class certification and declaratory and injunctive

relief;

(B) By Order of October 12, 2004, the Court (1) certified the class consisting of "all persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the [Department of

Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)], through the Immigration Courts or

the Board of Immigration Appeals [(BIA)] of the United States, and to whom USCIS has failed to

issue evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class

excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. U S .Attorney General, No. 04-CV-21685 (S.D.

Fla.) and the plaintiff class in Padilla v. Ridge, No. M 03-126 (S.D. Tex.);" (2) named Maria
\
Santillan, Flora Rodriguez Santillan, and Jamie Rodriguez Santillan as class representatives; and

(3) named counsel of named plaintiffs as counsel for the class;

(C) By Order of August 24, 2005, the Court subdivided the class into a "pre-April 1 subclass" of persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status by the EOIR

under regulations in effect prior to April 1,2005 through the Immigration Courts or the BIA, and

to whom USCIS has failed to issue evidence of registration as a l a h l permanent resident, with

the exception that the class excludes the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v. U S . Attorney

General, No. 04-CV-21685 (S.D. Fla.) and the plaintiff class in Padilla v. Ridge, No. M 03-126

(S.D. Tex.), and a "post-April 1 subclass," who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident

status by the EOIR under regulations in effect on April 1,2005 or thereafter;

(D) In the same Order of August 24, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Declaring Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act;

(E) By Order of December 22,2005, the Court issued a Permanent Injunction; (F) Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit; on February 16, 2006. (G) One of Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Javier Maldonado on behalf of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Laws of Texas, represents the plaintiff class in Padilla v.

Ridge, No. M 03-126 (S.D. Tex.);

(H) Defendants deny all liability with respect to the Action, deny that they have engaged in any wrongdoing, deny the allegations in the Complaint filed in the Action, deny that

2.

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENTOF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

they committed any violation of law, deny that they acted improperly in any way, and deny

liability' of any kind to the Plaintiffs, the Class, or the Class Members, but have agreed to the

settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice in order to: (i) avoid the substantial

expense, inconvenience, and distraction of protracted litigation; and (ii) finally put to rest and

terminate the Action and any and all Settled Claims (see below Section I: "Definitions");

(I) Class Counsel have conducted discussions and arm's length negotiations with Defendants' Counsel with respect to a compromise and settlement of the Action with a view to

settling the issues in dispute and achieving the best relief possible consistent with the interests of

the Plaintiffs, the Class, and all Class Members;

(J) Class Counsel (1) have concluded that the terms and conditions of this Stipulation

are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Named Plaintiffs, the Class, and all Class

Members; (2) have agreed that the Released Parties should be released from the Settled Claims

pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Stipulation; (3) and have agreed to the dismissal of

the Action with prejudice and to seek vacatur of the Court's permanent injunction Order of

December 22, 2005 (slip copy published at 2005 WL 3542661 (N.D. Cal. 2005)), after

considering the substantial benefits that the Plaintiffs, the Class, and all Class Members will

receive from settlement of the Action, the risks of litigation, and the desirability of perinitting the

Settlement to be consummated as provided by the terms of this Stipulation;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the

parties to this Stipulation, though their respective attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court

pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in consideration of the benefits

flowing to the pasties hereto from the Settlement, that the Settled Claims as against the Released

Parties shall be compromised, settled, forever released, barred, and: dismissed with prejudice,

upon and subject to the following terms and conditions:

I. Definitions:

Wherever used in this Stipulation, the following terms have the meanings set forth below:

A. "Action" means the above-captioned action pending in the United States

District Court for the Noi-them District of California (docket no. C 04-2686-MHP) and in the U.S.

3.

STIPULATIOANND AGREEMENOTF SETTLEMENT

ANDRELEASE

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (docket no. 06-15366).

B. "Class" means, for purposes of this settlement only, a Plaintiff class

pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, comprising all persons who have

been or will be granted l a h l permanent resident status prior to termination of this Stipulation by

the EOIR, through the Immigration Courts or the BIA, and to whom the USCIS has failed to issue

evidence of registration as a lawful permanent resident, with the exception that the class excludes
the 34 named plaintiffs in Lopez-Amor v US. Atiorney General, No 04-CV-21685 (S.D. la.).

This class definition is dependent upon dismissal of the action in Padilla, et al., v. Ridge, et al.,

No. M-03-126 (S.D. Tex.), or transfer of that action to the Northern District of California. The

Class ceases to exist upon the termination of this, Stipulation, and the Class shall not accrue any

additional members after such termination date. If the Padilla case is not dismissed or transferred

to this court, the parties will re-negotiate the terms of this agreement.

C. "Class Member" means any Person included in the Class.

D. "Effective Date of Settlement" or "Effective Date" means the date upon

which the Settlement contemplated by this Stipulation shall become effective, as set forth in

paragraph 33 below.

E. The terms "evidence of LPR status" and "documentation of LPR status"

mean documentation issued by DHS to an alien having l a h l permanent resident status that the

alien may show to demonstrate his or her status for purposes of travel, employment, and other

activities requiring documentation of an individual's immigration status in the United States. For

purposes of this Stipulation, such documentation also constitutes the "evidence of registration as a

lawful permanent resident" in the class definition as defined above.

F. "Lawful Permanent Resident" ("LPR) means a lawful permanent resident
alien of the United States, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(20).

G. The term "Perinanent Resident Card" or "Form 1-551" means the secure,

biometric document that is issued by DHS to LPRs as evidence of their permanent resident status.

H. "Plaintiff(s)" or "Named Plaintiff(s)" means Maria Santillan, Flora
t
Rodriguez Santillan, Jaime Rodriguez Santillan, Maria Camarillo, Jose Miranda, Miroslava

4.

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENOTF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

Hernandez, Pablo Hernandez Calvillo, and Rodolfo Navas;

I. "Plaintiffs' Counsel" or "Class Counsel" means Cooley Godward Kronish

LLP, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Laws of Texas, and the Mexican

American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Should these entities change their names or merge

with other entities, those new entities shall also qualify as Class Counsel.

J. "Released Parties" means any and all of the Defendants, their predecessors

and successors, their departments and agencies, and their past or present agents, employees, and

contractors.

K. "Settled Claims" means any and all actions, suits, claims, demands, rights,

liabilities, and causes of action, of every nature and description, whether known or unknown,

accrued or unaccrued, whether based on federal, state, local, statutory, or common law or any

other law, rule, or regulation, that were asserted or that could have been assested or could be

asserted in this Action in any forum, that the Plaintiffs, the Class, the Class Members or any of

them, or any of their heirs, representatives, attorneys, successors, assigns, and any person they

represent, in the past had, now have, or during the pendency of the Stipulation might have against

the Defendants or any of them, which regard, concern, relate to, refer to, arise out of, or are based

upon, in any way: (a) the allegations, transactions, facts, matters, occurrences, representations,

omissions, disclosures, statements, failure to disclose, or failure to act involved, set forth, referred

to or that were, could be, or could have been asserted in the Action, including laown and

Unknown Claims as herein defined, and whether or not concealed or hidden; (b) any Defendant's

provision or failure to provide evidence of LPR status, and the manner or timing of such

provision or non provision; (c) the Defendants' defense of or settlement of the Action. Provided,

however, that the definition of Settled Claims shall not in any way impair or restrict the rights of

the settling parties to invoke the dispute resolution provisions of this Stipulation at paragraphs 26-

29. Specifically, this definition does not restrict a class member's ability to pursue "Individual

Claims" except as set forth in paragraph V.26. As used herein, "Unknown Claims" shall mean

any and all actions, suits, claims, demands, rights, liabilities, and causes of action relating to or

arising from the allegations in the Action that the Plaintiffs, the Class, or any of the Class

5.

STIPULATIOANND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT . ANDRELEASE

Members do not h o w of or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release of the

Released Parties, including but not limited to those that, if lu~ownby them, might have affected

their agreement to the Settlement.

L. "Settlement" means the settlement contemplated by this Stipulation.

11. Release; Scope and Effect of Release

1. The obligations incurred pursuant to this Stipulation shall be a full and final

disposition of the Action with prejudice and of any and all Settled Claims as against all Released

Parties.

2. On the Effective Date, the Plaintiffs, the Class, and the Class Members, on behalf

of themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, attorneys, successors,

assigns, agents, affiliates, and partners, and any Persons they represent ("Releasing Parties"),

shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and

forever released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties of and from any and all of the

Settled Claims, and the Releasing Parties shall forever be barred and enjoined from bringing or

prosecuting any Settled Claim against any of the Released Parties. The terms of this paragraph do

not limit the Individual Claims or Class Claims that Plaintiffs may bring pursuant to paragraphs

26-29.

3. This Stipulation is contingent on the Court's vacating its permanent injunction

Order of December 22, 2005 (published at 2005 WL 3542661 (N.D. Cal 2005)) and the

preservation of the summary judgment Order (published at 388 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal.

2005)). Defendants' concurrence with the preservation of the summary judgment Order does not

constitute, and shall not be deemed to imply, Defendants' agreement with the findings or

decisions contained in that Order.

4. In consideration for the releases contained herein, and subject to this Stipulation's

conditions, the Defendants will institute requirements, as detailed herein, for the issuance of

evidence of LPR status to Class Members who are issued any of the following final orders by

EOIR: (i) orders granting adjustment of status to permanent residence; (ii) orders granting

cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of a non-permanent resident to permanent

6.

S T I P U L A T I O NAND A G R E E M E N0 1T7 S E T T L E R ~ E N T

ANDRELEASE

residence; (iii) orders granting suspension of deportation and adjustment of status of a non-

permanent resident to permanent residence; (iv) suspension of deportation or special rule

cancellation of removal; or (v) any other form of relief from removal that EOIR may grant that

results in a Class Member being granted LPR status at the conclusion of removal proceedings
(collectively, the "Covered Orders'?). See 8 U.S.C. 5 1159; 8 U.S.C. 5 1186a; 8 U.S.C. 5 1186b; former 8 U.S.C. 5 1254; 8 U.S.C. 5 1229b(b); 8 U.S.C. 5 1255; Pub. L. No. 106-429, 5 101(a),

Nov. 6, 2000, 114 Stat 1900, 1900A-57; Pub. L. No. 106-378, Oct. 27,2000, 114 Stat. 1442; Pub.
L. No. 105-277, Div. A, 5 101(h), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-480, 2681-538; Pub. L. No. 105100, Title 11, 5 202, Nov. 19, 1997, 111 Stat.2193; Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, Title VI, Sept.

30, 1996, 119 Stat 3009-709; Pub. L. No. 102-404, Oct. 9, 1992, 106 Stat. 1969; Pub.-L.No. 101-
238, S 2, Dec. 18, 1989, 103 Stat. 2099; Pub. L. No. 101-167, Title V, 5 599E, Nov. 21, 1989,

103 Stat. 1263; Pub. L. No. 97-271, Sept. 30, 1982, 96 Stat. 1157; Pub. L. No. 95-145, Title I,
$ 5 101-107, Oct. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1223; Pub. L. No. 89-732, Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1161; 8 U.S.C. 5 1255b; 8 U.S.C. 5 1259; 8 U.S.C. 5 1160; 8 U.S.C. 5 1255a; 50 U.S.C. 5 403h. As used

in this Stipulation, the term "Final Covered Order" shall apply to Covered Orders that satisfy
8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(47)(B).

111. Requirements for Issuance of Status Documentation

A. Notice to Class

5. Defendants, acting through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"),

agree to provide to any Class Member who receives a Covered Order fkom an Immigration Court

a written description of the Post-Order Instructions for obtaining docuinentation of LPR status

from USCIS at the time such Class Member receives such Covered Order. Defendants, acting

tlwough the BIA, agree to provide to any Class Member who receives a Covered Order from the

BIA information in the decision on how to access DHS procedures for obtaining documentation

of LPR status fiom USCIS.

6. Defendants agree to post the information contained in the written description of

Post-Order Instructions on USCISyspublic website, and to provide appropriate hyperlinks to the

Post-Order Instructions from other public websites maintained by DHS and DOJ.

7.

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENOTF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

7. Any Class Member who received a Covered Order prior to April 1, 2005 and who

has not, as of the Effective Date of this Stipulation, received the Post-Order Instructions, shall be

provided the Post-Order Instructions if and when he or she contacts USCIS seeking issuance of

status documentation.

8. Defendants will also notify Class Members of the Settlement pursuant to a Court-

approved Notice to the Class pursuant to paragraph 30 of this Stipulation.

B. Communication between ICE and USCIS of Class Members' Status

9. Within three (3) business days of a Class Member's Covered Order froin an

Immigration Court becoming final, ICE shall provide notice to USCIS that provides all necessary

information for USCIS to process such Class Member's status documentation, such as

verification that all required security and background checks have been completed, the Class

Member's class admission code, and, where applicable, confirmation that the Department of State

has provided such Class Member a visa number.

C. Timing of Issuance of Status Documentation

10. Subject to the exceptions in this Stipulation, USCIS shall issue a Permanent

Resident Card (Form 1-551) within (i) fifteen (15) business days of capture of the Class Member's

biometrics at the Application Support Center ("ASC") as described in paragraph 15 of this

Stipulation; or (ii) thirty (30) business days from the Starting Date, as defined in paragraph 11 of

this Stipulation, whichever date is later.

11. For Class Members who have been issued a Final Covered Order as of the

Effective Date of this Stipulation, the "Starting Date" shall mean: (i) the date on which the Class

Member first presents himself or herself at a local USCIS oflice in conformity with paragraphs

12-14 of this Stipulation; or (ii) the Effective Date of this Stipulation, whichever is later. For

future Class Members who receive a Final Covered Order after the Effective Date of this

Stipulation, the "Starting Date" is the date on which the Class Member first presents himself or

herself at a local USCIS office in conformity with paragraphs 12-14 of this Stipulation.

D. The Initial USCIS Appointment

12. In order to conform with this paragraph of the Stipulation, the Class Member must

8.

STIPULAT~ONAND AGREEMENTOF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

make an appointment at a local USCIS office using InfoPass or other routine means used for

making USCIS appointments. For purposes of this Stipulation, this appointment at USCIS will

be termed the "InfoPass appointment." If the Class Member is unable to do so himself or herself

because the Class Member (or his or her representative, if any) does not have access to, or ability

to access, the Internet, or because InfoPass or other routine means used for making USCIS

appointments indicates the unavailability of such appointments, the Class Member may come to a

local USCIS office without previously contacting USCIS, and USCIS will schedule the Class

Member's USCIS appointment not later than two (2) weeks after the Class Member's visit to the

USCIS office.

13. In order to conform with this paragraph of the Stipulation, the Class Member must

appear at the USCIS appointment set pursuant to paragraph 12 of this Stipulation with the

following information: (i) his or her copy of the Covered Order; (ii) satisfactory evidence of his

or her identity; (iii) a passport, if available; and (iv) any USCIS receipt notice issued to the Class

Member in connection with the application for relief and any evidence of prior biometric

processing, if such documents are in the Class Member's possession. The failure to present the

items in (iii) and (iv) above will not affect the date of the cornrneixement of the prescribed period

of time. Using the above documents, USCIS will verify the identity of the Class Member and that

the same Class Member has received a Final Covered Order.

14. If the ~ 1 a s s ' ~ e m bdeores not bring the documents required in paragraph 13(i) and

(ii) to his or her InfoPass appointment, USCIS will schedule a subsequent InfoPass appointment

for the Class Member, and the prior appointment will not be deemed in conformity with

paragraph 13 of this Stipulation.

15. If at the time of an InfoPass appointment at USCIS that conforms with paragraphs

12 and 13 of this Stipulation, USCIS determines that the Class Member's biometrics have not

been previously obtained, or have not been obtained in a manner that can be retrieved by USCIS

for card production, USCIS shall schedule a new appointment at an ASC for biometrics capture

for the Class Member within fifteen (15 ) business days of the above-mentioned appointment. If a

Class Member is required to pay a DHS biometrics collection fee, and the Class Member can

9.

STIPULATIOANND AGREEMENTOF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

demonstrate prior payment of that fee in association with his application for relief that EOIR

granted, the Class Member will not be charged additional fees for providing biometric

information at the ASC. A Class Member may demonstrate prior payment by showing a USCIS

fee receipt indicating such payment, a cancelled check for the biometric fee, a credit card receipt

for the fee, a copy of the money order submitted for the fee payment, or the customer receipt fioin

the institution that issued the money order.

16. The time periods described in paragraphs 10, 11, and 14 shall be tolled during any

period that a Class Member fails to attend a scheduled ASC appointment and provide biometrics,

fails to provide the information in 13(i) or 13(ii) necessary for processing his or her request for

documentation of LPR status, or fails to comply with any other requirements of such paragraphs.

E. Administrative Remedies for Non-Issuance of Status Documentation

17. USCIS shall establish a National Point of Contact ("POC"), with a dedicated e-

mail address or website, to accept inquiries from Class Members who do not receive status

documentation within the period specified in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Stipulation.

18. Any Class Member who does not receive documentation of LPR status within the

period specified in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Stipulation may, personally or through a

representative, contact the POC at the dedicated USCIS e-mail address or through a USCIS

website location, provided that USCIS is able to establish such a website location as a

replacement for the e-mail process. If a Class Member is unable to send an e-mail to the POC or

to use the replacement website location, once implemented, to contact the POC, the Class

Member may call the USCIS National Customer Service Center toll free number to make such

inquiry, and the USCIS National Customer Service Center shall collect the information listed in

paragraph 19 and transmit it to the national POC.

19. The Class Member or his or her representative, in the e-mail to the POC or the

replacement USCIS website location (if created) or the call to the USCIS National Customer

Service Center referred to in paragraph 18, must transmit the following information: (a) Class

Member's name; (b) Class Member's "A number"; (c) Class Member's date of birth; (d) Class

Member's address; (e) the date the Class Member's Covered Order became final; (f) type of relief

10.

STIPULATIOANND AGREEMEONFTSETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

granted to the Class Member by EOIR; (g) location of USCIS office where Class Member

attended an InfoPass appointment at USCIS; (h) dates of Class Member's USCIS InfoPass

appointment(s) and ASC appointments (if applicable); and (i) any other available information

regarding Class Member's efforts to obtain status documentation. In order to ensure that the class

member provides all the information elements in this paragraph necessary for the POC to inquire

about the class member's status documentation, USCIS may provide a form to be attached to the

class member's e-mail, or create a replacement website format, for the class member to complete

the requested information.

20. Within twenty-one (21) business days after a Class Member or his or her

representative sends the e-mail, submits the USCIS website form (once created), or contacts the

toll free number and conveys the required information in paragraph 19, USCIS shall mail or

otherwise issue to the Class Member a Permanent Resident Card (Form 1-551). If USCIS does

not mail or othenvise issue a Form 1-551 to a Class Member within such period, then: (i) the

Class Member may appear without an appointment at a local USCIS office; (ii) at such

appearance, after USCIS confirms that USCIS has not mailed or otherwise issued the Class

Member's Form 1-551, USCIS shall issue the Class Member temporary documentation of LPR

status that is sufficient for the Class Member to present when required to provide evidence of his

or her immigration status for travel, employment, or other purposes requiring such evidence. Any

such temporary documentation shall be valid for at least six (6) months. DHS shall issue a

permanent 1-551 card to the Class Member within six (6) months of issuing the temporary

documentation. When issuing either temporary or permanent documentation of status, nothing in

this Stipulation shall prevent Defendants from complying with the requirements for secure

documents as contained in section 303(b) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 107-173 (2002) (codiJied, as amended, at 8 U.S.C. 5 1732(b)).

Defendants ase expected to meet their obligations to issue temporary documentation under this

paragraph consistent with the U.S. Code.

21. USCIS will maintain for two (2) years following the Effective Date of this

Stipulation records of all Class Members who identify themselves to the POC or to the USCIS

11.

STIPULATIOANND AGREEMENOTF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

National Customer Service Center toll free number in conformity with paragraph 24 of this

Stipulation.

I?. National Security Exception

22. Plaintiffs agree, on behalf of themselves, the Class, and the Class Members, that

nothing in this Stipulation shall limit Defendants from withholding evidence of LPR status from a

Class Member beyond any of the time periods stated in this Stipulation, where Defendants

possess specific and particular information about that Class Member 'that was not previously

disclosed by the Class Member, on the record while in removal proceedings, that the Class

Member may be a risk to national security or public safety. The USCIS Director or Deputy

Director will certify, in writing, that (a) Defendants possess the specific and particular

information, as described in this paragraph, that the Class Member may be a risk to national

security or public safety; (b) he or she has reviewed and considered such information that is

available to USCIS, and (c) he or she approves the decision to withhold documentation of LPR

status from the Class Member for national sec~~riotyr public safety reasons as provided in this

paragraph. This writing is not required to be in the form of a declaration, affidavit, or any other

statement or writing made under oath or the penalty of perjury. Plaintiffs also agree that nothing

in this Stipulation shall limit Defendants' authority to promulgate regulations, issue policy

directives and guidance, and to take other appropriate action, as necessary, concerning

background and security investigations conducted on aliens or the issuance of documents to

aliens.

G . Emergency Request for Issuance of Status Documentation

23. A Class Member may seek issuance of temporary status documentation at any

InfoPass appointment at USCIS where the class member provides the information in paragraph

13(i) and 13(ii) of this Stipulation if: (a) he or she brings written evidence demonstrating an

emergency need to travel (e.g.,death or imminent death of an immediate family member abroad

or severe illness of a minor child or dependent who needs medical treatment abroad); or (b)

demonstrates an emergency need for documentation evidencing his or her eligibility for

employment. USCIS will ordinarily provide such temporary documentation of LPR status if the

12.

STIPULATIONAND AGREEMENOTF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

Class Member's checks have been completed and establish that the Class Member does not pose a

risk to national security or public safety.

IV. Defendants' Reporting Obligations

24. Defendants agree that, for two (2) years following the Effective Date of this

Stipulation, USCIS will provide quarterly reports ("Quarterly Reports") to class counsel listing

(by name and A-file number) Class Members who have contacted the POC pursuant to

paragraphs 17-20 of this Stipulation during the reporting period and who have not been issued

doc~nentationof LPR status by the due date of the Quarterly Report. The Quarterly Report shall

identify, for each Class Member, whether the relevant time period for issuance of documentation

of LPR status under this Stipulation has indeed expired and any reason Defendants assert for not

issuing status documentation; provided, however, that USCIS will not list any reason provided for

in paragraph 22 of this Stipulation in the Report. USCIS will provide such quarterly reports to

class counsel within twenty-one (21) business days after the end of each quarter, which end on

March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each year.

25. Defendants will include in the Quarterly Report to Class Counsel the number of

times, if any, during the period that status documents have been withheld for the reason provided

for in paragraph 22 of this Stipulation.

V. Dispute Resolution Procedures; Exhaustion of Remedies

26. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, the Class, and the Class Members, agree that:

(a) their sole and exclusive remedy for any alleged breach of this Stipulation is specified in

paragraphs 27 ("Class Claims") and 28 ("Individual Claims") of this Stipulation; (b) no Class

Member may bring either an Individual Claim or a Class Claim (as defined herein) unless such

Class Member has (i) appeared at an InfoPass appointment or other routine means used for

making USCIS appointments at USCIS in conformity with paragraphs 12 and 13 of this

Stipulation; (ii) if applicable, appeared at an ASC appointment in conformity with paragraph 15

of this Stipulation; (iii) contacted the POC in conformity with paragraphs 17 through 19 of this

Stipulation; and (iv) not been issued documentation of LPR status within the twenty-one (21)-

business day period in paragraph 20 of this Stipulation; and (c) that the Court's summary

13.

STIPULATIOANND AGREEMENOTF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

judgment Order of August 24,2005 (publlished at 388 F.Supp.2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2005) shall not

constitute res judicata for claim or issue preclusion purposes in the context of either the

Individual Claims that may be brought under paragraph 28 or the Class Claims that may be

brought under paragraph 27. Any claim that does not meet the requirements of this paragraph

shall be dismissed. Defendants reserve any and all applicable defenses, iilcluding those that may

become available if the law changes, to any Class or Individual Claim filed under this Stipidation.

A. Class Claims

27. A "Class Claim" is any claim by a Class Member, represented by Class Counsel,

to enforce this Stipulation on behalf of the Class. This Court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction

to hear any Class Claim. No Class Claims may be filed or made, individually or collectively,

unless: (i) the Class Member making the Class Claim can identify at least 25 Class Members

from a minimum of 4 different USCIS districts who have exhausted all of the procedures required

of them in paragraphs 12 through 20 of this Stipulation without receiving documentation of LPR

status, (ii) such Class Members still have not received their documentation of LPR status after

two (2) calendar quarters since the Class Members exhausted those procedures; and (iii) the Class

Member making the Class Claim has identified the 25 Class Members in subpart (i), including

names and A numbers, to the USCIS Chief Counsel, in writing, at least sixty (60) days in advance

of requesting enforcement by the Court. The 60-day notice period in subpart (iii) may run

concurrently, in whole or in part, with the calendar quarters in subpart (ii). Defendants reserve

and do not waive any defenses that they may have to a Class Claim, including defenses without

limitation already raised in the Litigation and defenses that may arise under new laws or

regulations.

B. Individual Claims

28. An "Individual Claim" is an action brought by an individual Class Member to

invoke court assistance to obtain individual relief in the form of documentation of LPR status.

An Individual Claim may be brought in this Court or in any other federal district court with

jurisdiction over the parties. A Class Member's exhaustion of remedies does not per se establish

that such Class Member has met his burden to prove the individual claim brought

to this

14.

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENTOF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

Stipulation. With the exception of the requirements set forth in paragraph 26, this Stipulation

does not restrict a Class Member's ability to pursue actions in accordance with this paragraph.

Defendants reserve and do not waive any defenses that they may have to an Individual Claim,

including defenses without limitation already raised in the Litigation and defenses that may arise

under new laws or regulations.

29. If a Class Member who has not received documentation of LPR status for the

reasons allowed in paragraph 22 of this Stipulation files an Individual Claim, and the court

determines that the Individual Claim was filed in accordance with this Stipulation, Defendants

shall, within thirty (30) days of such determination, inform the Class Member or his appropriate

representative in his individual lawsuit, in writing, that the Director or Deputy Director of USCIS

has made a determination to withhold that Class Member's evidence of status beyond the

applicable time period in the Stipulation because DHS possesses specific and particular

information that the Class Member may be a risk to national security or public safety; provided,

however, that issuing documentation of LPR status to that Class Member prior to that time will

obviate the need for USCIS to provide such writing. Defendants are not required to describe the

nature or details of information that they possess regarding Class Members for whom Defendants

decide to withhold evidence of LPR status under paragraph 22 of this Stipulation.

VI. Terms of Order for Notice and Hearing

30. Concurrently with their filing of this Stipulation, Class Counsel and Defendants'

Counsel shall jointly apply to the Court for preliminary Court approval of the Settlement

contemplated by this Stipulation and entry of a Preliminary Approval Order, substantially in the

form appended hereto as Exhibit A. Such Preliminary Approval Order will seek approval of a

Notice to the Class, as well as a finding that the following satisfies the publication requirements

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: (i) posting the Notice to the Class and this Stipulation in appropriate places

on the USCIS, ICE, and DOJIEOIR public websites, and (ii) distributing within three (3) business

days of the date of the Court's preliminary approval of this Stipulation, the Notice to the class and

the Stipulation to all immigration assistance providers listed on the Roster of Recognized
Organizations and Accredited Representatives maintained by EOIR pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 9 292

15.

STIPULATIONAND AGREEMENTOF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

and 1292, and the Pro Bono Program section of the EOIR website.

VII. Terms of Order and Final Judgment

31. If the Settlement contemplated by this Stipulation is approved by the Coui-t,

counsel for the parties shall request that the Court enter Final Judgment substantially in the form

appended hereto as Exhibit B. Such Final Judgment shall include a full vacatur of the Coui-t's

permanent injunction Order of December 22, 2005 (slip copy published at 2005 WL 3542661

(N.D. Cal. 2005)) with such vacatur effective as of the date of the Final Judgment, except as to

those matters that will remain the subject of the District Court's retained jurisdiction under

paragraph 27 of this Stipulation. The Final Judgment shall not include vacatur of the Coui-t's

summary judgment Order of August 24, 2005 (published at 388 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal.

2005)).

32. Within 60 days following the Court's entry of the Final Judgment; Defendants will

publish a Notice of Final Settlement Agreement according to the methods set forth in paragraph

30. The language of the Notice of Final Settlement Agreement will be agreed upon by the parties

and will constitute ail updated Notice to the Class.

VIII. Effective Date of Settlement, Waiver or Termination

33. The Effective Date of this Stipulation shall be the date when all of the following

shall have occurred:

(a) entry of the Preliminary Approval Order in all material respects in the form appended hereto as Exhibit A;

(b) approval by the Court of this Stipulation, following notice to the Class and a hearing, as prescribed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

(c) entry by the Court of Final Judgment, in all material respects in the form appended hereto as Exhibit B.

34. In the event that the District Court's approval of the Stipulation or the Final

Judgment referenced in 33(c) is voided on appeal, vacated, or terminated, the parties' good faith

adherence to the terms of this Stipulation prior to said voidance, vacation or termination shall not

be considered unlawful.

16.

ST~PULATIONAND AGREEMENTOF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

35. ~efendants'Counsel or Class Counsel shall have the right to terminate the

Settlement and this Stipulation by providing written notice of their election to do so

("Termination Notice") to all other parties hereto within thirty (30) days of (a) the court's

declining to enter the Preliminary Approval Order or modification of that Preliminary Approval

Order in any material respect; (b) the Court's declining to approve the Settlement embodied in

this Stipulation, or any material part of it; (c) the Court's declining to enter the Final Judgment or

modification of the Final Judgment in any material respect; (d) the date upon which the Final

Judgment is modified, reversed, or vacated in any material respect by the Court, the Court of

Appeals or the United States Supreme Court; or (e) the date upon which an Alternative Judgment

is modified, reversed, or vacated in any material respect by the Court, the Court of Appeals or by

the United States Supreme Court.

36. Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event the Settlement is terminated or

modified in any material respect or fails to become effective for any reason, then the Settlement

shall be without prejudice and none of its terms shall be effective or enforceable; the parties to

this Stipulation shall be deemed to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as of the

date and time immediately prior to the execution of this Stipulation; and except as otherwise

expressly provided, the parties shall proceed in all respects as if this Stipulation and any related

orders had not been entered. In the event the Settlement is terminated or modified in any material

respect, the Defendants shall be deemed not to have waived, modified, or be estopped from

asserting any additional defenses available to them.

IX. Termination of Obligations

37. The obligations of this Stipulation shall terminate after two (2) years from the

Effective Date without further action by the Court. The termination of this Stipulation shall not

extinguish or diminish the District Court's authority to resolve claims pending during the

effective period of the Stipulation pursuant to the District Court's retained jurisdiction under

paragraph 27, nor shall the termination of the Stipulation extinguish or diminish the rights of any

party with such pending claims to obtain relief based on the terms of this Stipulation.

X. No Admission of Wrongdoing

17.

STLPULATIAONND AGREEMENOTF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

38. This Stipulation, whether or not executed, and any proceedings taken pursuant to

it:

(a) shall not be construed to waive, reduce or otherwise diminish the authority of the Defendants to enforce the laws of the United States against Class Members

notwithstanding the terms of this Stipulation, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the

United States.

(b) shall not be offered or received against the Defendants as evidence of, or construed as or deemed to be evidence of, any presumption, concession, or admission by any of

the Defendants of the truth of any fact alleged by the Plaintiffs or the validity of any claim that

had been or could have been asserted in the Action or in any litigation, or the deficiency of any

defense that has been or could have been asserted in the Action, or of any liability, negligence,

fault, or wrongdoing of the Defendants; or any admission by the Defendants of any violations of,

or failure to comply with, the Constitution, laws or reg~~lations.

(c) shall not be offered or received against the Defendants as evidence that failure to provide documents within the time frame set forth herein, or within any time frame, is

unjustified or illegal; and

(d) shall not be offered or received against the Defendants as evidence of a presumption, concession, or admission of any liability, negligence, f a ~ ~ ol ir,wrongdoing, or in any

way referred to for any other reason as against any of the parties to this Stipulation, in any other

civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, other than such proceedings as may be

necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Stipulation; provided, however, that if this

Stipulation is approved by the Court, Defendants may refer to it and rely upon it to effectuate the

liability protection granted them hereunder.

XI. Attorneys' Fees

39. Within 90 days of entry of a final and nonappealable judgment in this case

approving this Stipulation, Defendants will deliver to Class Counsel the sum of $575,000, in

settlement of all claims for attorneys' fees and costs that could have been or will be claimed in

this litigation. Defendants shall bear any costs incurred in connection with notifying the class of

18.

STIPULATIOANND AGREEMENTOF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

the terms and conditions of this Stipulation.

XII. Additional Provisions

40. This Stipulation, and the obligations incurred herein, shall be in full and final

disposition of the Action with prejudice and any and all Settled Claims against Defendants. On

the Effective Date, Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released,

relinquished, and discharged the Defendants of and from any and all Settled Claims.

41. All of the exhibits attached hereto are hereby incorporated by reference as though

fully set forth herein.

42. This Stipulation may not be modified or amended, nor may any of its provisions

be waived except by a writing signed by all parties hereto or their successors-in-interest.

43. The headings herein are used for the purpose of convenience only and are not

intended to have legal effect.

44. The administration and consunmation of the Settlement as embodied in this

Stipulation shall be under the authority of the Court, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the

purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulation.

45. The waiver by one party of any breach of this Stipulation by any other party shall

not be deemed a waiver of any other prior or subsequent breach of this Stipulation.

46. This Stipulation and its exhibits constitute the entire agreement among the parties

hereto concerning the Settlement of the Action, and no representations, warranties, or

inducements have been made by any party hereto other than those contained and memorialized in

such documents.

47. This Stipulation may be executed in one or more counterparts. All executed

counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument provided that

counsel for the parties to this Stipulation shall exchange among themselves original signed

counterparts.

48. This Stipulation shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the successors

and assigns of the parties hereto.

49. This Stipulation shall not be construed more strictly against one party than another

19.

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENTOF SETTLEMENT

ANDRELEASE

merely by virtue of the fact that it, or any part of it, may have been prepared by counsel for one of the parties, it being recognized by the parties that this Stipulation is the result of arm's length negotiations between the parties and that all parties have contributed substantially and materially to the prepasation of this Stipulation.
50. All counsel and any other person executing this Stipulation and any of the exhibits hereto, or any related settlement documents, warrant and represent that they have the fill1 authority to do so and that they have the authority to take appropriate action required or permitted to be taken pursuant to the Stipulation to effectuate its terms.
51. Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel agree to cooperate fully with one another in seeking Court approval of the Preliminary Order in Connection with t h e . Settlement Proceedings, the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and to promptly agree upon and execute all such other documentation as may be reasonably required to obtain final approval by the Court of the Settlement.

Dated:
/

3 ZG~I*

Dated: B.Q.2;.12L7@7,

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Santillan, et. al.
~~~~ / 7 7 d~ ( 5 ~
Mark Walters (Mark.Walters@usdoj.gov) OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION Attorney for Defendants

20.

STII'ULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE