Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 1 of 8

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

FELICITAS CARREON-MOCTEZUMA,

)

OSWALDO BYIRINGIRO HAKORINAMA, and

)

ANGELICA ALEJANDRA ALAMILLO,

)

Individually on their own behalf, and

)

on behalf of all others similarly situated. )

) CA B-07-145

v.

)

)

T. DIANE CEJKA, DIRECTOR,

)

U.S.C.I.S., LEE’S SUMMIT, MISSOURI,

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY,

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

)

)

FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Felicitas Carreon-Moctezuma, Oswaldo Byiringiro Hakorinama, and Angelica Alejandra Alamillo, through the undersigned counsel, file the instant First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (28 U.S.C. §2241) and Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief, under 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), together with 5 U.S.C. §702 et seq, (Administrative Procedure Act) (“APA”), and 28 U.S.C. §2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act).

Plaintiffs seek to force Defendants to process their I-765 applications for employment authorization, (“EADs”), (and those of the class they seek to represent), pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §274.13(d), and without regard to Requests For Evidence, (“RFEs”), issued in conjunction with applications other than the I-765 itself.
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Under 8 C.F.R. §274.12(c)(9) and §274.13(a)(1), Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, may file an I-765, application for an employment authorization document, in conjunction with a pending application for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident, (“Form I-485"). Under 8 C.F.R. §274a.12(c), such I-765s may be filed not only when the I-485 is pending before the District Director, but also during “any period when an administrative appeal or judicial review of [the I-485] is pending.”

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 2 of 8
Further, 8 C.F.R. §274.13(d) mandates that the District Director “shall adjudicate” an I-765 within 90 days of receipt, and that failure to do so “will result” in the grant of an interim EAD.
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(10)(i), an application or petition (of any type) may be held in suspension if it is “missing required evidence,” or if an affected individual who requires fingerprints, or an interview, has requested re-scheduling. And under 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(10)(ii), “interim benefits” ... “will not be granted” based on an application held in suspension under §103.2(b)(10)(i).
Until recently, §103.2(b)(10)(ii) was interpreted in accordance with its plain language, as applying only to applications where RFEs had been issued. Recently, however, Defendants have reinterpreted it as also applying to applications where no RFE has been filed, but where there is an RFE in connection with a related application, such as an I-765 filed in conjunction with an I-485 (or an N-600, Application For a Certificate of Citizenship), for which an RFE was issued. Clearly, 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(10)(ii) would apply where, for example, a request for evidence, (“RFE”), was issued seeking proof that an I-765 applicant was eligible for an EAD, i.e., proof that the related adjustment application or N-600 was still pending before the District Director, or undergoing administrative or judicial review. By its plain language, however, it has no bearing on I-765s where RFEs were issued for accompanying applications. Defendants’ recently adopted construction applying it to I-765s where RFEs were issued with respect to other applications is inconsistent with the plain language of §103.2(b)(10)(ii), and effectively renders 8 C.F.R. §274.13(d) null and void.
Further, it appears that Defendants have started using RFEs as a ruse to avoid issuing EADs. At approximately the same time that they adopted this new interpretation, it also became common for them to request documents which had already been provided with the initial filing. They also issue very general demands, making it
2

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 3 of 8
almost impossible to determine what documents, if any, are actually being requested. This forces applicants to re-send large portions of the supporting documents, and usually delays issuance of the EAD beyond the date of the interview on the underlying application, rendering it of little, if any, value.
Consequently, Plaintiffs seek habeas relief, and, on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the class she seeks to represent, Petitioners request injunctive, and corresponding declaratory relief, limiting the application of 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(10)(ii) to the petition or application with respect to which Defendants have requested additional evidence.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Felicitas Carreon, (“Ms. Carreon”), is a native and citizen of Mexico, who resides in Brownsville, Texas. On July 30, 2007, she filed an application for adjustment of status, (I-485), in conjunction with a visa petition, (I-130), filed by her U.S. citizen daughter. Simultaneously, she filed an I-765 application for an Employment Authorization Document, (“EAD”). Petitioner’s Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference.
2. By “Request for Initial Evidence (I-485)” dated September 8, 2007, Defendants requested various forms of allegedly “initial” evidence. Said document also provided as follows, 1 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B, herein incorporated by reference:
You are ineligible for interim employment authorization pursuant to Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 103.2(b)(10) until ninety days after the missing initial evidence is received. 3. Defendants’ refusal to provide Ms. Carreon with an EAD until 90 days after they receive allegedly missing “initial documents” places significant restrictions on her liberty not shared by the
1 Notably, the Form used for the RFE has a notation at the bottom, “NBC November 15, 2006 Revision 8,” indicating that the form was revised less than a year ago.
3

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 4 of 8
populace at large, and constitutes “custody” within the meaning of Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240 (1963).
4. Similarly, Petitioners Hakorinama and Alamillo simultaneously filed applications for adjustment of status and EADs. Both received requests for evidence (“RFEs”), containing language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 2 above, and are therefor in “custody” as described in Paragraph 3 above.
II. THE PARTIES 5. Petitioner/Plaintiff Felicitas Carreon is a native and citizen of Mexico, who resides in Brownsville, Texas. Petitioner/Plaintiff Oswaldo Byiringiro Hakorinama is a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who resides in Tucson, Arizona. Petitioner/Plaintiff Angelica Alejandra Alamillo is a native and citizen of Mexico, who resides in Sebastian, Texas.
6. Respondent/Defendant T. Diane Cejka is the Director of the Lee’s Summit Office of the U.S.C.I.S., which issued the RFE in question. (Exhibit B). Respondent/Defendant Michael Chertoff is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Both are sued in their official capacities only. The United States of America is also a Defendant herein.
III. THE FACTS 7. Petitioner Carreon a native and citizen of Mexico, who resides in Brownsville, Texas. On July 30, 2007, her U.S. citizen daughter filed a fee-paid I-130, in conjunction with which Petitioner Carreon filed applications for adjustment of status, (I-485), and for an Employment Authorization Document, (“EAD”). Exhibit A. Said applications contained all required “initial evidence,” including a copy of the local crossing card with which she last entered the United States, and necessary financial documentation.
8. By “Request for Initial Evidence (I-485)” dated September 8, 2007, Defendants requested allegedly “initial” evidence. Said document used lengthy boilerplate language to request allegedly
4

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 5 of 8
missing financial documentation, without specifying what documents were lacking. It also provided as follows, 2 Exhibit B:
You are ineligible for interim employment authorization pursuant to Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 103.2(b)(10) until ninety days after the missing initial evidence is received.
9. Oswaldo Byiringiro Hakorinama is a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo. on or about January 31, 2003, he entered the United States from Canada, where he had been admitted as a refugee, with a B-1/B-2 visa issued on March 20, 2001. His application for asylum in the U.S. was denied, and he was placed in removal proceedings. On May 23, 2007, he filed applications for adjustment of status and an EAD, through his U.S. citizen wife.
10. By RFE dated June 11, 2007, Defendants requested,inter alia, that Mr. Hakorinama provide his birth certificate, a document which he has had difficulty obtaining, since he is from North Kivu, where war has broken out - again. His attorney provided other documents requested, but was unable to provide the birth certificate. The RFE stated that he was ineligible for an EAD until 90 days after the missing evidence had been received. A second RFE, with the same language, was issued September 13, 2007, again requesting the missing birth certificate. Mr. Hakorinama has just received, and will submit, an e-mailed copy of his birth certificate, but it is unknown whether this will satisfy Defendants, and if not, how long it will take to obtain an original. 3
11. Angelica Alejandra Alamillo is a three-year-old native and citizen of Mexico, and adopted daughter of U.S. citizens, who filed
2 Notably, the Form used for the RFE has a notation at the bottom, “NBC November 15, 2006 Revision 8,” indicating that the form was revised less than a year ago.
3 This appears to be a “blind” application of the rules. One would think that if the State Department was sufficiently satisfied of his identity to issue a visa to Mr. Hakorinama, there is little need for an actual birth certificate.
5

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 6 of 8
applications for adjustment of status and an EAD 4 on her behalf on July 30, 2007. By RFE dated September 19, 2007, Defendants requested evidence of how Ms. Alamillo had entered the United States, (which evidence had already been provided), and a Form I864W, a newly created form whose purpose is to state why Form I-864 is not required. Said RFE also contained the following language:
You are ineligible for interim employment authorization pursuant to Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 103.2(b)(10) until ninety days after the missing initial evidence is received.
IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 12. These are not isolated problems. Rather, they represent a nationwide policy recently adopted by Defendants, based on a reinterpretation of 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(10). The effect of this new policy is to deny Plaintiffs, the class they seek to represent, and N-600 applicants, whose ability to obtain EADs based on their pending applications derives from an Equal Protection violation vis-a-vis adjustment applicants, 5 of employment authorization well past the 90 deadline established by 8 C.F.R. §274.13(d).
13. Plaintiffs herein seek to represent a nation-wide class, consisting of all persons who are seeking the status of permanent residents, who have filed or will in the future file I-765s in conjunction with pending I-485s, and who have received or will receive RFEs, seeking evidence in support of their pending I-485s, with the following (or equivalent) language:
You are ineligible for interim employment authorization pursuant to Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 103.2(b)(10) until ninety days after the missing initial evidence is received. 14. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the class as so defined numbers at least in the dozens, if not the hundreds, or
4 An Employment Authorization Documents is a prerequisite to obtaining a Social Security number, even for small children.
5 See, Dominguez-Perez et al v. Ridge et al, CA B-96-116 (S.D.Tx 2004).
6

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 7 of 8
thousands, not counting future members.
15. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. Joinder is particularly impracticable since the class includes future members.
16. The claims of the Plaintiffs Carreon, Hakorinama, and Alamillo are typical of the claims of the class.
13. Plaintiffs Carreon, Hakorinama, and Alamillo, and their counsel, can and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
14. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the class and which predominate over any individual questions. Further, Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief, with respect to the class as a whole.
V. THE CAUSES OF ACTION A. HABEAS CORPUS
The deprivation of the liberty of Petitioners Carreon, Hakorinama, and Alamillo, as complained of herein violates the laws and Constitution of the United States, which claim is cognizable in habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241.
Under 8 C.F.R. §274.13(d), Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Petitioners’ I-765s within 90 days of receipt, or issue an interim EAD. Their refusal to do so until 90 days after they provide additional evidence with respect to a legally and conceptually distinct application, (a pending I-485), places restrictions on their liberty not shared by the populace at large, within the meaning of Jones v. Cunningham, supra.
B. CLASS-WIDE RELIEF INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Under 8 C.F.R. §274.13(d), Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate the I-765s of members of the Plaintiff class within
7

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 8 of 8

90 days of receipt, or issue interim EADs. Their refusal to do so until 90 days after they provide allegedly missing “initial evidence” with respect to a legally and conceptually distinct application, to wit, a pending I-485, is a violation of Defendants’ duties. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive, and corresponding declaratory relief.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED Wherefore, Petitioners Carreon, Hakorinama, and Alamillo seek Writs of Habeas Corpus, freeing them from the unlawful restraint on their liberty, by requiring that Defendants forthwith adjudicate their I765s, or, alternatively, that they issue them interim EADs.
Plaintiffs Carreon, Hakorinama, and Alamillo, also request, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class they seek to represent, an injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants from applying 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(10)(ii) to applications other than the specific application with respect to which an RFE has been issued, and corresponding declaratory relief.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

TX Bar No: 03052800 Federal ID: 1178

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Lisa S. Brodyaga, certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically served on Rene Benavides, AUSA, on October 21, 2007.

s/ Lisa S. Brodyaga

8

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

FELICITAS CARREON-MOCTEZUMA,

)

OSWALDO BYIRINGIRO HAKORINAMA, and )

ANGELICA ALEJANDRA ALAMILLO,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

T. DIANE CEJKA, Director, U.S. Citizen

)

and Immigration Service, Lee’s Summit Office )

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary for the

)

Department of Homeland Security, and

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Case No. 07-145

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants, through undersigned counsel, hereby move to dismiss Plaintiffs’

complaint as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

The Secretary of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is charged with the administration

and enforcement of laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens,

including establishing regulations providing the form of bonds, reports and such, and

performing other acts as necessary for carrying out his statutorily prescribed authority.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 2 of 9
8 U.S.C. § 1193(a). Specifically, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), housed within DHS, has been charged with adjudicating I-485, Applications to Adjust Status, and I-765, Applications For Employment Authorization. 8 C.F.R. § 245; 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12.
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c), certain classes of aliens, who are temporarily within the United States, must file an Application For Employment Authorization (“I-765") in order to receive an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”). This class of aliens includes any alien who has filed a I-485, Application to Adjust Status (I485"). See C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(9). USCIS is provided with the discretionary authority to adjudicate I-765, and – if granted – to place any restrictions upon them. 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c).
Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to judicial relief because USCIS has improperly withheld adjudication of their I-765's based solely on deficiencies in their concurrently filed I-485's. See First Amended Complaint at 6. They ask the Court to compel USCIS to immediately adjudicate their I-765 applications or, in the alternative, to issue interim Employment Authorization Documents (“EAD’s”). See First Amended Complaint at 8. However, since filing their first amended complaint, Plaintiffs have complied with the Requests for Initial Evidence and have become recipients of EAD’s. See attached declaration of Terri Robinson. The Court should therefore dismiss this case as moot.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 3 of 9
B. Factual Background Plaintiff Felicitas Carreon-Moctezuma (“Carreon”) filed an I-485 on July 30, 2007. See Petitioner’s Exhibit A. Carreon filed a concurrent I-765 on that date. Id. Carreon’s I-485, however, lacked required initial evidence that would allow USCIS to adjudicate her applications. As a result, USCIS mailed two letters to Carreon dated September 8, 2007, requesting that she provide required initial documentation in order for her application to be processed and adjudicated. Id. The first Request for Initial Evidence informed Carreon of her failure to submit documentation showing that a member of her household’s income was lawfully obtained. Id. The second Request for Initial Evidence informed Carreon of her failure to provide “evidence of [her] current nonimmigrant status or the nonimmigrant status under which [she] last entered the United States” or if she last entered without inspection “evidence of [her] eligibility for adjustment of status.” Id. As a result of her failure to submit these required documents, the Request for Initial Evidence stated that she would be ineligible to receive interim employment authorization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(10)(ii) until the documentation was received. Id. On November 26, 2007, USCIS received Carreon’s response to the Request for Initial Evidence. See attached declaration of Terri Robinson. As Carreon’s application was no longer lacking the required initial evidence, her I-765 was adjudicated and an EAD was issued on that same date. Id. Petitioner Oswaldo Byiringiro Hakorinama (“Hakorinama”) filed an I-485 along
3

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 4 of 9
with a I-765 with USCIS on May 23, 2007. See Petitioner’s Amended Complaint at 5, ¶ 9. Hakorinama’s I-485, however, failed to include a birth certificate, as is required for USCIS to adjudicate I-485's. On June 11, 2007, USCIS sent Hakorinama a Request for Initial Evidence informing him of his failure to submit the birth certificate. See Petitioner’s Exhibit G. The Request for Initial Evidence further provided that should Hakorinama be unable to provide his birth certificate, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii), he must provide the following documents:
‘an original written statement on government letterhead establishing this (the nonexistence of a birth certificate) from the relevant government or other authority. The statement must indicate the reason the record does not exist, and indicate whether similar records for the time and place are available.’ If your birth certificate is not available, please submit acceptable secondary evidence including but not limited to church, or school records listing your parents’ names and your date of birth, hospital records of your birth, etc. Id. As a result of his failure to properly submit required initial evidence with his I-485, Hakorinama was ineligible to receive any interim benefits, including employment authorization. Id.; see also § 103.2(b)(10)(ii). On September 4, 2007, Hakorinama responded to the Request for Initial Evidence. See Petitioner’s Exhibit G. Rather than providing the birth certificate or secondary documents, as requested by USCIS in the Request for Initial Evidence, Hakorinama provided an affidavit and other unrequested documents. Id. On September 17, 2007, USCIS mailed a second Request for Initial Evidence to Hakorinama, again seeking his birth certificate. Id.
4

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 5 of 9
On October 29, 2007, USCIS received Hakorinama’s response to the second Request for Initial Evidence. See attached declaration of Terri Robinson. As Hakorinama complied with the Request for Initial Evidence, his I-765 was adjudicated. Id. On November 26, 2007, Hakorinama became the recipient of an EAD pending the adjudication of his I-485.
Petitioner Angelica Alejandra Alamillo (“Alamillo”) filed a I-485 along with a I765 with USCIS on July 30, 2007. See First Amended Complaint at 5-6, ¶ 11. On September 19, 2007, USCIS mailed two Requests for Initial Evidence to Alamillo based on her failure to provide required documents with her I-485, Application to Adjust Status. See Petitioner’s Exhibit F. The first Request for Initial Evidence required Alamillo to submit a I-864, Affidavit of Support from her joint sponsor. Id. The Second Request for Initial Evidence required that Alamillo submit either evidence of her nonimmigrant status or evidence of her eligibility to adjust status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) (e.g. a beneficiary of a immigrant visa petition). Id. The Request for Initial Evidence also stated that based on her failure to provide the required documents she is “ineligible for interim employment authorization benefits . . . until ninety (90) days after the missing initial evidence is received.” Id.
On October 30, 2007, USCIS received Alamillo’s response to the Request for Initial Evidence. See attached declaration of Terri Robinson. As her applications were no longer missing required documents, USCIS was able to adjudicate her I-765. Id. On
5

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 6 of 9
November 2, 2007, USCIS granted Alamillo’s application and issued an EAD. Id. II. ARGUMENT
A. Standard of Review Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 12(b)(1) permits dismissal of an action when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. A motion under 12(b)(1) may be decided on any of three basis: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; and (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts. Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996); Fleischer v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 955 F. Supp. 731, 733-34 (S.D. Tex. 1997). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion should be granted only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of a claim that would entitle her or him to relief. Home Builders Ass’n of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1009 (5th Cir. 1998); Benton v. United States, 960 F.2d 19, 20 (5th Cir. 1992). A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory authority or constitutional power to adjudicate it. Home Builders Ass’n of Mississippi, 143 F.3d at 1009. B. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(1), the Court Must Dismiss this Action For Mootness Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the consideration of “Cases” or “Controversies.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t., 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998); Sierra Club v. Peterson, 185 F.3d 349, 360 (5th Cir. 1999). The
6

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 7 of 9
“case or controversy” constraint, in turn, limits federal courts to cases that present a “justiciable controversy,” and no such “controversy is presented . . . when the question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by subsequent developments.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968).
A case is moot when the litigants are no longer threatened with an actual injury traceable to the defendants that could be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Lewis v. Continental Bank, 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). A federal court may only decide “real and substantial controvers[ies] admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Id.
Justiciability is an ongoing requirement, for the “requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Arizonians for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While a lawsuit may have been considered alive at the inception of the suit, “[t]he parties must continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.” Lewis, 494 U.S. at 478 (citing Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1990). Here, Plaintiffs’ claims were based on the fact that USCIS had withheld adjudication of their I-765's due to the issuance of Requests for Evidence on their I-765's that were filed in conjunction; the relief they sought was for USCIS to adjudicate those applications or, in the alternative, to issue interim EAD’s. See
7

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 8 of 9

First Amended Complaint at 8. The fact that USCIS granted all three Plaintiffs’ EAD’s

(see attached declaration of Terri Robinson) has preempted their claims, and the relief

they seek would consequently have no practical impact. Accordingly, because the

Plaintiffs no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the relief they seek, their claims

must be dismissed as moot.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss

Plaintiffs’ claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Dated: December 10, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY S. BUCHOLZ Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division
WILLIAM J. HOWARD Assistance Director
STACEY I. YOUNG BENJAMIN ZEITLIN Trial Attorneys Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

DONALD J. DeGABRIELLE, JR. Attorney General United States Attorney
By: /s/ Rene Carlo Benavides RENE CARLO BENAVIDES Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office, S. Dist. of Texas 1701 W. Hwy. 83, Suite 600 McAllen, Texas 78501 (956) 618-8010 (phone) (956) 618-8016 (fax) Texas Bar No. 24025248 Southern Dist. No. 2615

8

Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/07 Page 9 of 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 10, 2007, a true and correct copy of the Motion to Dismiss was been forwarded to Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Lisa Brodyaga by e-mail or Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested at 17891 Landrum Park Road, San Benito, Texas 78586.
/s/ Rene Carlo Benavides Rene Carlo Benavides Assistant United States Attorney
9

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00145 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/08 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

OCT 2 2 2008

BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

§

CARREON-MOCTEZUMA, ET AL.,

§

Michael N. Milby, CI~ By Deputy CJerk _ ....~ ._ _

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

Civil Action No. B-07-145

§

T. DIANE CEJKA, Director, United States §

Citizen and Immigration Service, ET AL.,

§

Defendants.

§

ORDER

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs claims as moot on December 10,2007.

(Docket No. 18) Plaintiffs filed a response conceding that the relief sought by the Plaintiffs in this

action (i.e., employment authorization documents) have already been issued by the Defendants to

the Plaintiffs making this action moot. (Docket No. 22). Having considered the Defendants' motion

and the Plaintiffs' response, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

(Docket No. 18). The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to close this case. :P:~~
Signed, this~day of October, 2008.

Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-00145 As of: 06/12/2012 10:59 AM CDT 1 of 4
CLOSED, HABEAS
U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Brownsville)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−00145

Carreon−Moctezuma v. Cejka et al Assigned to: Judge Andrew S. Hanen Related Case: 1:96−cv−00116 Cause: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Det
Petitioner

Date Filed: 09/18/2007 Date Terminated: 10/22/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General) Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Felicitas Carreon−Moctezuma

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

Petitioner Angelica Alejandra Alamillo

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

Petitioner Oswald Byiringiro Hakorinama

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

V.
Defendant
T. Diane Cejka Director, U.S.C.I.S., Lee's Summit, Missouri

represented by Benjamin Zeitlin US Dept of Justice 450 5th Street NW Room 6020 PO Box 878 − Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−2807 Email: benjamin.zeitlin@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Ilene Young United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−7171 Email: stacey.young@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-00145 As of: 06/12/2012 10:59 AM CDT 2 of 4

Rene Carlo Benavides Gutierrez Wymer 7718 Broadway San Antonio, TX 78209 210−225−2299 Fax: 210−225−2266 Email: rbenavides@gutierrezwymer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael Chertoff Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

represented by Benjamin Zeitlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Defendant United States of America

represented by Benjamin Zeitlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Date Filed 09/18/2007
09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/19/2007
09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 3042759) filed by Felicitas Carreon−Moctezuma.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
2 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
3 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
4 EXHIBITS re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Felicitas Carreon−Moctezuma, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
5 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
6 ORDER, entered. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents, T. Diane Cejka, Michael Chertoff, and the United States of America, file their response(s) no later than November 19, 2007. (Signed by Judge John Wm Black) Parties notified.(gmendieta) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
***Set Deadlines: Response due by 11/19/2007 (bvasquez, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
Summons Issued as to T. Diane Cejka, filed.(bvasquez, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
Summons Issued as to Michael Chertoff, filed.(bvasquez, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-00145 As of: 06/12/2012 10:59 AM CDT 3 of 4

09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/24/2007 09/24/2007 09/24/2007 10/21/2007 10/21/2007 10/21/2007 10/21/2007
10/21/2007 10/22/2007 11/08/2007
11/09/2007
11/09/2007 12/10/2007
12/10/2007
12/12/2007 12/13/2007

Summons Issued as to U.S. Attorney, Civil Processing Clerk, filed.(bvasquez, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
Summons Issued as to Peter Keisler, Acting U.S. Attorney General, filed.(bvasquez, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
7 Supplemental EXHIBITS re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Felicitas Carreon−Moctezuma, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
8 Supplemental EXHIBITS re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Felicitas Carreon−Moctezuma, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
9 Supplemental EXHIBITS re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Felicitas Carreon−Moctezuma, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
10 RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to United States of America served on 9/28/2007, answer due 11/27/2007, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2007)
11 RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Michael Chertoff served on 10/9/2007, answer due 12/10/2007, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2007)
12 RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to T. Diane Cejka served on 9/28/2007, answer due 11/27/2007, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2007)
13 First AMENDED Complaint against T. Diane Cejka, Michael Chertoff, United States of America filed by Angelica Alejandra Alamillo, Oswald Byiringiro Hakorinama, Felicitas Carreon−Moctezuma.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2007)
14 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed.(Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2007)
15 SEALED EXHIBITS, filed. (Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
16 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to file Response to Habeas PetitionMotions referred to John William Black. by T. Diane Cejka, Michael Chertoff, United States of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/28/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time; Came on to be heard by the Court this day the Unopposed Motion to Extend the Response Deadline to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. After reviewing the pleadings, the Court is of the opinion the Motion should be GRANTED. It is therefore, ORDERED that the Respondent's response deadline is extended to December 10, 2007.( Signed by Judge John William Black ) Parties notified.(bcampos, ) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
***Answer due for T. Diane Cejka 12/10/2007; United States of America 12/10/2007. (bcampos, ) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
18 MOTION to Dismiss 13 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Motions referred to John William Black. by T. Diane Cejka, Michael Chertoff, United States of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/31/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Proposed Order)(Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
19 Unopposed MOTION for Benjamin Zeitlin and Stacey Young to Appear Pro Hac ViceMotions referred to John William Black. by T. Diane Cejka, Michael Chertoff, United States of America, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/31/2007. (Benavides, Rene) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
20 ORDER granting 19 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice regarding Stacey Young for all Defendants.( Signed by Judge John William Black ) Parties notified.(bcampos, ) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
21 ORDER Granting 19 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Benjamin Zeitlin as to T. Diane Cejka, Michael Chertoff, United States of America. (Signed by Judge John Wm Black) Parties notified.(gmendieta) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-00145 As of: 06/12/2012 10:59 AM CDT 4 of 4

12/31/2007
10/22/2008 11/07/2008

22 RESPONSE to 18 MOTION to Dismiss 13 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus MOTION to Dismiss 13 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Felicitas Carreon−Moctezuma, Angelica Alejandra Alamillo, Oswald Byiringiro Hakorinama. (Brodyaga, Elisabeth) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
23 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss.(Signed by Judge Andrew S. Hanen) Parties notified.(bcampos, ) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
24 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to attorney Stacey Young re: 23 Order on Motion to Dismiss, filed. (aalonzo, ) (Entered: 11/10/2008)