Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 1 of 24

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

~::n..nltutttdheSrtrat0l!1SsOtwirttnocf t111:

, Jr
_.._

,

l=llf<l

AUr, 1 q 200,

Michael N. Milby, Cl9rk £J; Court

TERESA D. PADILLA, IQBAL SHEIKH,

FADI EL HADDAD, REYNA GUTIERREZ, §

BARTOLO GUIJARRO-HERNANDEZ,

LAURA FIERRO DE MARROQUIN, ROSA §

AURORA VIVEROS HUESCA, PEDRO

MAURICIO NOLASCO-CENTENO,

§

individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated persons,

§

§ Plaintiffs,
§ vs.
§

TOM RIDGE, Secretary for Homeland Security, JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney

§

General, EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., Director§

for the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services, DAVID ROARK,

§

Acting Regional Director for the USCIS

Central Region, ALFONSO DE LEON,

§

District Director for the Harlingen USCIS §

District, KENNETH PASQUARELL, District

Director for the San Antonio USCIS District, §

and HIPOLITO ACOSTA, District Director

for the Houston USCIS District,

§

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

Case No.: M-03-126

PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 2 of 24
1. Plaintiffs Teresa D. Padilla, Iqbal Sheik, Fadi El Haddad, Reyna Gutierrez, Bartolo Guijarro-Hemandez, Laura Fierro de Marroquin, Rosa Aurora Viveros Huesca, Pedro Mauricio Nolasco-Centeno, and a class of similarly situated persons (collectively, "Plaintiffs") file this class action complaint to protect their constitutional and statutory rights as persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident ("LPR") status in removal proceedings conducted by the immigration courts in Harlingen, Houston and the San Antonio within the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review ("DOJ"/"EOIR"), or who were or will be granted LPR status by the DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") in cases on appeal from said immigration courts and to whom the Department of Homeland Security's United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("DHS"/"USCIS") has not issued documentation evidencing LPR status.
2. Plaintiffs seek mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to issue them documentation of their LPR status within three days of the date that the Immigration Court's Order by which each Plaintiff acquired their LPR status becomes final or within such other legally reasonable time period as determined by this Court. I. JURISDICTION
3. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 1570, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
2

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 3 of 24
("IRCA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, and 2201. This Court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2202, and 5 U.S.C. § 702 et seq.
II. VENUE 4. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
because at least one defendant in this action resides in such district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
III. PARTIES 5. Plaintiffs are persons who were granted lawful permanent resident ("LPR") status
in removal proceedings conducted by the immigration courts in Harlingen, Houston and the San Antonio within the EOIR, or who were be granted LPR status by the BIA in cases on appeal from said immigration courts and to whom the USCIS has not issued documentation evidencing LPR status. 6. Alfonso De Leon is the District Director ofUSCIS for the Harlingen District. In this capacity, Mr. De Leon administers the immigration laws on behalf ofDHS in the seven southernmost counties in Texas that are served by the Harlingen District. He has decision-making authority with respect to the matters alleged in this complaint by Plaintiffs whose immigration cases are in the control ofthe Harlingen District Office. 7. Hipolito Acosta is District Director ofUSCIS for the Houston District. In this capacity, Mr. Acosta administers the immigration laws on behalf ofDHS in the thirty counties in southeastern Texas that are served by the Houston District. He
3

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 4 of 24
has decision-making authority with respect to the matters alleged in this complaint by Plaintiffs whose immigration cases are in the control of the Houston District Office. 8. Kenneth Pasquarell is the District Director ofUSCIS for the San Antonio District. In this capacity, Mr. Pasquarell administers the immigration laws on behalf of the Secretary for DHS in the seventy eight counties in central and south Texas that are served by the San Antonio District. He has decision-making authority with respect to the matters alleged in this complaint by Plaintiffs whose immigration cases are in the control of the San Antonio District Office. 9. David Roark is the Acting Regional Director of the USCIS central region. In this capacity, Mr. Roark administers the immigration laws on behalf of the Secretary for DHS in several states, including Texas. He has decision-making authority with respect to the matters alleged in this complaint by Plaintiffs whose immigration cases are in the control ofthe Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio district offices. 10. Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., is the Director ofUSCIS. In this capacity, Mr. Aguirre is responsible for the administration of immigration benefits and services including the processing of citizenship applications, family and employment-based petitions, alien registration, asylum and refugee processing, and issuance of documentation evidencing immigration status of aliens residing in the United States. As such, he has decision-making authority over the matters alleged in this complaint and, specifically, over the failure to provide documentation of LPR status to Plaintiffs.
4

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 5 of 24
11. Tom Ridge is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary Ridge is charged
with, amongst other things, administering the users and implementing and
enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. As such, he has ultimate decision-making authority over the matters alleged in this complaint and, specifically, over the failure to provide documentation to Plaintiffs of LPR status. 12. John Ashcroft is the Attorney General of the United States. In his official capacity, Mr. Ashcroft is charged with administering the Executive Office of Immigration Review which, among other things, conducts removal proceedings in immigration cases and decides administrative appeals of such cases. As such, he has ultimate decision-making authority to grant or deny lawful permanent resident status to persons in removal proceedings.
III. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 13. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffclass consists of:
All persons who were or will be granted LPR status in removal proceedings conducted by the immigration courts in Harlingen, Houston and the San Antonio within the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review ("DOJ/EOIR"), or who were or will be granted LPR status by the DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") in cases on appeal from said immigration courts and to whom the Department of Homeland Security's United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("DHS"/"USCIS") has not issued documentation evidencing LPR status. 14. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 15. The precise number of class members within the Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio USCIS Districts is not known with precision and fluctuates. In addition,
5

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 6 of 24
the actual number of class members will increase because the class includes future members. 16. Class members reside anywhere in the one hundred and fifteen counties served by the Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio USCIS Districts. The Harlingen District serves the seven counties in the southernmost tip of Texas; the Houston District serves thirty counties in south-eastern Texas; and, the San Antonio District serves seventy eight counties in central and south Texas. The difficulties in contacting and communicating with members of the class resulting from Plaintiffs' varied locations of residence make joinder of all class members impractical. 17. There are questions oflaw and fact that are common to the named plaintiffs and class members. 18. Questions oflaw common to the named plaintiffs and class members include whether USCIS may deny proof evidencing LPR status to persons granted such status in removal proceedings and whether Defendants' delays in granting proof of LPR status to class members are unreasonable and unlawful. 19. Questions of fact common to the named plaintiffs and class members include whether USCIS is failing to provide class members with documentation evidencing their LPR status and whether USCIS is delaying granting documentation of LPR status to class members. 20. The claims ofthe named plaintiffs are typical of the claims ofthe class. Plaintiffs know of no conflict between their interests and those of the class they seek to represent. In defending their own rights, the individual plaintiffs will defend the rights of all class members.
6

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 7 of 24

21. The named plaintiffs and counsel representatives are adequate representatives of

the class.

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

class insofar as they have failed to provide to class members documentation of

their LPR status.

V. LEGALFRAMEWORK

23. Plaintiffs (as described in Paragraph 13 supra) are aliens who were placed in removal proceedings as provided under the INA. 1

24. Removal proceedings are conducted by the EOIR. 8 C.P.R.§§ 1003.0 (describing

the organizational structure ofEOIR), 1003.9-1003.46 (describing the

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

25. Generally, removal proceedings are initiated with the service of a "Notice to

Appear" to the alien where he or she is advised of, among other things, the nature

of the proceedings, the charges of deportability against him or her, the time and

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

appear. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a).

26. The "Notice to Appear" is then filed with the Immigration Court by

representatives ofDHS. 8 C.P.R.§ 1003.14. The filing of the "Notice to

Appear" vests jurisdiction on the Immigration Court. Id.

27. The alien, and his or her counsel if represented, makes an appearance at a master

calendar hearing and the case is set for a merits hearing at a later date. 8 C.F.R.

§§ 1003.17-1003.21.

1 As used herein, the term "removal" and "deportation" are used interchangeably to refer to the expulsion of aliens who previously entered the United States.

7

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 8 of 24
28. If the alien is determined to be deportable, he or she may seek several forms of relief from deportation.
29. Adjustment of status and cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) are the primary forms of relief from deportation relevant to this litigation. However, other forms of relief from removal also result in the grant of LPR status, such as relief under the Cuban Adjustment Act or under the former 8 U.S.C. § 1254(c), and the recipients of such relief are members of Plaintiffs' class.
30. An alien in removal proceedings can obtain relief from deportation by adjusting status to that of a lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1255, 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1l(a)(l). Section 1255 of8 U.S.C. sets forth the different types of persons who, in the discretion of the Attorney General, may adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident.
31. Generally, an alien in removal proceedings can adjust if he or she was inspected and admitted or paroled into the U.S. or is eligible under§ 1255(i), has a visa immediately available, has maintained lawful status (except for§ 1255(i) applicants) and is otherwise not statutorily ineligible. Thus, parents, spouses, and children ofUnited States citizen adults are eligible to adjust so long as they are not statutorily ineligible. If they meet the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1255, lawful permanent residents can also adjust their status in removal proceedings to defeat deportation.
32. Second, an alien can seek cancellation of removal and adjustment of status to that oflawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b).
8

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 9 of 24
33. Generally, cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l) is available to nonpermanent residents who have resided for a long period oftime in the U.S. and whose deportation would cause exceptional and unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
34. Victims of domestic abuse can obtain cancellation of removal if they meet certain criteria. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2).
35. For both adjustment and cancellation, the alien must affirmatively request the reliefby filing the proper forms, relevant evidence, and filing fees. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1240.11(a), 1240.20, 1240.21 (describing procedures for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal). The alien must also submit to fingerprinting at a facility designated by the local USCIS district office.
36. After the required forms have been submitted, the fees paid, and the fingerprints have cleared through the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation ("FBI"), the alien appears before the Immigration Judge who approves or denies the request for adjustment of status or cancellation of removal.
37. If granted relief from removal, an alien is accorded LPR status by issuance of an Order from an Immigration Judge who has reviewed the alien's eligibility for such status. The Order indicates the section ofthe law under which relief was provided.
38. No other documentation or picture identification is given to the alien that shows that he or she is an LPR.
39. If an alien is in removal proceedings, applies for adjustment of status and the application is granted, the alien acquires lawful permanent residence status as of
9

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 10 of 24
the date the Immigration Judge's order becomes administratively final. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(b). 40. If an alien is in removal proceedings, applies for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) and the application is granted, the alien acquires lawful permanent residence status as of the date the order of cancellation becomes final.
8 u.s.c. § 1229b(b)(3).
41. Except when certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decision ofthe Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal ifno appeal is taken. 8 C.P.R.§ 1003.39.
42. The USCIS is bound to give full effect to final decisions of the Immigration Courts.
43. There are no regulations that specifically address the manner in which persons who are granted LPR status in removal proceedings are to be provided with proof oftheir status in the United States.
44. The Immigration Courts do not have the capacity to issue documentation evidencing LPR status to aliens granted cancellation or adjustment.
45. Only the local USCIS district offices have the capacity to issue documentation of LPR status.
46. Indeed, USCIS issues such documentation on a daily basis to aliens who are not in proceedings and who adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents at the district level.
47. For aliens who are granted LPR status in removal proceedings, the usual practice in the USCIS Districts of Harlingen, Houston, and San Antonio for obtaining
10

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 11 of 24
proof of LPR status and permanent resident cards is to visit the local USCIS district office and request ADIT ("Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication") processing. 48. In ADIT processing, USCIS collects fingerprints and photographs from the alien. The local USCIS office sends the photographs and fingerprints to an off-site facility to produce the permanent resident cards. 49. It may take several months or even more than a year for the alien to receive the permanent resident card, which is known as the Form I-551. 50. While waiting for their Form I-551 permanent resident card, aliens must be issued alternative proof oftheir LPR status sufficient for all lawful purposes. 51. The alternative proof of LPR status usually takes the form of an I-94 card (commonly referred to as the temporary I-551) or an I-551 stamp on the alien's passport. 52. When USCIS issues this alternative proof of LPR status to aliens who are granted LPR status in removal proceedings, USCIS does so pursuant to statutory or regulatory duties. 53. USCIS must issue proof of LPR status to aliens who are granted LPR status in removal proceedings within a reasonable time period. 54. However, it may take several months or even more than a year for USCIS to issue proof of LPR status to aliens who are granted LPR status in removal proceedings. 55. Between the time that an alien is granted LPR status in removal proceedings and the time that such alien receives proof of LPR status from USCIS, he or she is without documentation of his or her LPR status.
11

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 12 of 24
56. An Immigration Judge's order granting LPR status is not proper documentation evidencing employment eligibility or identity. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(l)(B),(C) and (D); 8 C.P.R. § 1274a.2(b)(v).
57. Indeed, the Immigration Judge's order granting LPR status lacks important qualities required by federal law such as a photograph of the alien and security features making it resistant to tampering, counterfeiting, or fraudulent use.
58. An Immigration Judge's order granting LPR status is insufficient evidence of identity and alien status for the purpose of obtaining a Social Security card. 8 C.P.R.§ 422.107.
59. An Immigration Judge's order is not valid documentation to obtain admission into the United States. 8 C.P.R.§ 211.1(a).
60. Therefore, aliens granted LPR status by an Immigration Judge cannot travel abroad until USCIS issue them proof of status without taking the risk that they will not be readmitted into the country based upon their inability to prove their LPR status.
61. Aliens granted LPR status by an Immigration Judge cannot enroll in community colleges because most schools request a Social Security number and proof of lawful status in the United States.
62. Finally, federal law requires lawful permanent residents to carry at all times a "certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card" or else be guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a fine, imprisonment or both. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e).
12

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 13 of 24
63. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) or other federal law, Border Patrol or other federal agents may arrest persons who are in the United States and claim to be lawful permanent residents but cannot prove such status.
64. Therefore, aliens who have been granted LPR status by an Immigration Judge and who have not received documentation of their LPR status from USCIS are subject to arrest.
65. As a result of their lack of documentation evidencing lawful status in the United States, these aliens live in fear of being detained by law enforcement officials for failing to prove their status in the United States. VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS
66. Plaintiffs have been placed in removal proceedings by Defendants as described in preceding paragraphs.
67. Plaintiffs applied for relief from deportation, and pursuant to federal regulations, they submitted the proper forms, evidence, and fees.
68. An Immigration Court conducted a hearing on each class member's request for relief from deportation. Defendants had the opportunity to challenge or oppose the request.
69. Plaintiffs' applications for relief from removal through either cancellation of removal, Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")§ 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b), or adjustment of status to that ofLPR, INA§ 245,8 U.S.C. § 1255, were granted. Plaintiffs acquired LPR status thereby.
70. Defendants had the right to appeal the decision of the Immigration Court but waived appeal, and the order of the Immigration Court became final.
13

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 14 of 24
71. Prior to the final hearing on their applications for relief, either the former Immigration and Naturalization Service or USCIS fingerprinted class members; FBI checks were conducted on the basis of these fingerprints; and the FBI checks revealed no arrests and no other derogatory information that prevented Plaintiffs from obtaining the requested relief from deportation.
72. After obtaining relief from deportation, class members, or their attorneys, requested that Defendants issue to class members proof of their LPR status in the United States.
73. The local USCIS District Offices of Harlingen, Houston, and San Antonio rejected class members' requests for ADIT processing.
74. Weeks and months have passed, and class members have not been called for ADIT processing and are without proof of their LPR status in the United States.
75. Defendants have not issued to Plaintiffs proof of their LPR status thereby depriving Plaintiffs of the constitutional rights and privileges that flow from their lawful permanent resident status.
76. The lack of documentation evidencing class members' LPR status in the United States has caused great personal hardship to class members.
77. The lack of documentation evidencing their LPR status has caused class members employment problems because they cannot demonstrate their eligibility for employment in the United States.
78. The lack of documentation evidencing their LPR status has inhibited class members' right to travel abroad because they cannot demonstrate their eligibility for readmission into the United States.
14

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 15 of 24
79. Class members have been subject to other problems caused by the lack of documentation evidencing their LPR status such as problems relating to applying for public benefits, obtaining medical care, enrolling in school and financing their education.
80. Plaintiffs also live in fear ofbeing stopped by state or federal officials and having to demonstrate lawful status in the United States, as required by law. Plaintiffs fear that some officials will not credit their claim to lawful status and that they will be detained for an indeterminate amount of time.
Named Plaintiffs Iqbal Sheikh 81. Mr. Sheikh is a native and citizen of India. He currently lives in San Antonio,
Texas, in Bexar County with his family. 82. Immigration authorities initiated deportation proceedings against Mr. Sheikh. 83. Mr. Sheikh filed his application for cancellation of removal. 84. By Order, December 19, 2003, an Immigration Judge in San Antonio, Texas,
granted his application, thereby according him LPR status. 85. Defendants did not appeal the Immigration Judge's order, and thus, the order
became final. 86. Mr. Sheikh has requested that Defendants provide him with proof of his LPR
status. Although it has been almost six months since his hearing before the Immigration Judge, Defendants have yet to give him any proof of status. 87. Mr. Sheikh has been harmed by Defendants' failure to provide him with proof of his LPR status.
15

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 16 of 24
Fadi El Haddad 88. Mr. El Haddad was born in Beirut, Lebanon but has lived in the United States for
three years. He currently lives in Converse, Texas, in the County of Bexar with his United States citizen wife and child. 89. In April of2003, immigration authorities initiated deportation proceedings against Mr. El Haddad. 90. Mr. El Haddad filed an application for adjustment of status based upon him marriage. 91. On February 5, 2004, a San Antonio Immigration Judge granted his application for cancellation of removal and made him a lawful permanent resident. 92. Defendants did not appeal the Immigration Judge's order, and thus, the order became final. 93. Mr. El Haddad has requested that Defendants provide him with proof of his LPR status. It has been over four months since his hearing before the Immigration Judge and Defendants have yet to give him any proof of status. 94. Mr. El Haddad has been harmed by Defendants' failure to provide him with proof of his LPR status. Reyna Gutierrez 95. Ms. Gutierrez is a native and citizen of Mexico. She currently lives in Laredo in Webb County, Texas with her permanent resident mother and United States citizen husband. 96. The former INS initiated removal proceedings against Ms. Gutierrez in May of 2001.
16

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 17 of 24
97. While in removal proceedings, she applied for adjustment of status. 98. On August 29, 2003, an Immigration Judge in San Antonio, Texas, granted her
application, thereby giving her lawful permanent resident status. 99. She has requested that Defendants provide her with proof of her lawful permanent
resident status, but they have not done so. It has been over nine months since her hearing before the Immigration Judge and Defendants have yet to give her any proof of status. 100. Ms. Gutierrez has been harmed by Defendants' failure to provide her with proof of her LPR status. Bartolo Guijarro-Hemandez 101. Mr. Guijarro-Hemandez is a native and citizen of Mexico. He currently lives in Elsa, Texas, in the County of Hidalgo, with his family. He is married to a lawful permanent resident and has four children, three of whom are United States citizens and one of whom is a lawful permanent resident. 102. On April 26, 2002, the former INS initiated removal proceedings against him. 103. Mr. Guijarro-Hemandez filed his application for cancellation of removal on May 6, 2003. 104. On August 22, 2003, an Immigration Judge in Harlingen, Texas, granted his application, thereby according him lawful permanent resident status. 105. The government did not appeal the Immigration Judge's order, and thus, the order became final. 106. Mr. Guijarro-Hemandez has requested that Defendants provide him with proof of his lawful permanent resident status, but they have not done so. It has been over
17

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 18 of 24
nine months since his hearing before the Immigration Judge and the government has yet to give him proof of his status. 107. Mr. Guijarro-Hemandez has been harmed by Defendants' failure to provide him with proof of his LPR status. Laura Fierro de Marroquin 108. Ms. Fierro de Marroquin is a native and citizen ofMexico. She currently lives in Sullivan City, Texas, in the county of Hidalgo with her six children. 109. On December 24, 2002, the former INS initiated removal proceedings against her. 110. She applied for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. 111. On September 18, 2003, an Immigration Judge in Harlingen, Texas, granted her application, thereby giving her lawful permanent resident status. 112. She has requested that the government provide her with proof of her lawful permanent resident status, but they have not done so. It has been almost nine months since her hearing before the Immigration Judge and Defendants have yet to give her any proof of her status. 113. Ms. Fierro de Marroquin has been harmed by Defendants' failure to provide her with proof of her LPR status. Rosa Aurora Viveros Huesca 114. Ms. Aurora Viveros Huesca is a native and citizen of Mexico. She currently lives in Mission, Texas in Hidalgo county with her two children. 115. In 2001, the former INS initiated removal proceedings against her. 116. She applied for adjustment of status.
18

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 19 of 24
117. On January 23, 2004, an Immigration Judge in Harlingen, Texas, granted her application, thereby giving her lawful permanent resident status. The government waived appeal of this order and it became final.
118. She has requested that the government provide her with proof of her lawful permanent resident status, but they have not done so. It has been over four months since her hearing before the Immigration Judge and Defendants have yet to give her any proof of her status.
119. Ms. Aurora Viveros Huesca has been harmed by Defendants' failure to provide her with proof of her LPR status.
Pedro Mauricio Nolasco-Centeno 120. Mr. Nolasco-Centeno is a native and citizen ofEl Salvador. He currently lives in
Houston, Texas, in the County of Harris. 121. The former INS initiated deportation proceedings against Mr. Nolasco-Centeno. 122. Mr. Nolasco-Centeno filed his application for cancellation of removal on August
15, 2002. 123. On October 21, 2002, an Immigration Judge in Houston, Texas, granted his
application, thereby according him LPR status. 124. Defendants did not appeal the Immigration Judge's order, and thus, the order
became final. 125. Mr. Nolasco-Centeno has requested that Defendants provide him with proof of his
lawful permanent resident status, but they have not done so. It has been almost a year and eights months since his hearing before the Immigration Judge and the government has yet to give him proof of his status.
19

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 20 of 24
126. Mr. Nolasco-Centeno has been harmed by Defendants' failure to provide him with proof of his LPR status. VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count One Fifth Amendment
127. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 128. Defendants' policies, practices or customs violate Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment
substantive and procedural due process rights. Count Two
Violation of INA 129. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 130. Defendants' policies, practices or customs violate 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. by
denying Plaintiffs documentary evidence of their LPR status. Count Three
Mandamus Action
28 u.s.c. § 1361
131. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 132. Defendants are charged with the responsibility of administering and implementing
the Immigration and Nationality Act. 133. Defendants bear sole responsibility for providing noncitizens with proof oflawful
status in the United States. 134. Defendants' failure to discharge their statutory obligations is injuring Plaintiffs. 135. Defendants should be compelled to perform a duty owed to Plaintiffs, namely, to
provide documentary evidence of LPR status.
20

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 21 of 24
Count Four Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
8 U.S.C. § 1324a 136. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 137. Defendants' practices and procedures violate the IRCA provisions relating to the
unlawful employment of aliens by failing to provide Plaintiffs with evidence of LPR status and/or their right to work in the United States.
Count Five Administrative Procedures Act
5 U.S.C. §§ 702 et seq. 138. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 139. By failing to give effect to final EOIR decisions and by failing to provide ADIT
processing and interim documentation of status, Defendants' practices and procedures violate the Administrative Procedures Act and constitute agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.
Count Five Declaratory Judgment Act 140. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 141. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' actions and decisions are unconstitutional, violate the INA, and are arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs seek a declaration to that effect. 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
Count Six Equal Access to Justice Act 142. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
21

..

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 22 of 24

143. Petitioners seek attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully ask the Court to: 1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 2. Certify a class of all persons who were or will be granted LPR status in removal proceedings conducted by the immigration courts in Harlingen, Houston and the San Antonio within the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review ("DOJ/EOIR"), or who were or will be granted LPR status by the DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") in cases on appeal from said immigration courts and to whom the Department of Homeland Security's United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("DHS"/"USCIS") has not issued documentation evidencing LPR status; 3. Declare that Defendants' policies, practices and customs deprive Plaintiffs of documentary evidence of their LPR status in the United States thereby violating the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the Administrative Procedures Act; 4. Declare that Defendants' practices violate legal duties owed to Plaintiffs under the Immigration and Nationality Act; 5. Enjoin Defendants from denying Plaintiffs documentary evidence of

22

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 23 of 24

their LPR status in the United States; 6. Order Defendants to issue Plaintiffs documentation of their LPR
status; 7. Award Plaintiffs' counsel reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and 8. Grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

June 9, 2004

Respectfully Submitted,

LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
By:itC:: UNDER LAW OF TEXAS
-
:V:r N. Maldonado S.D. Bar No. 20113 Texas Bar No. 00794216 David Anton Armendariz Texas Bar No. 24031708 118 Broadway Street, Suite 502 San Antonio, TX 78205-2074 Phone:210-277-1603 Fax: 210-225-3958
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Nina Perales Texas State Bar No. 24005046 140 E. Houston St., Ste. 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 Phone: 210-224-5476 Fax: 210-224-5382
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

23

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 08/19/04 Page 24 of 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that, on June£, 2004, a true copy of the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint For Mandamus, Declaratory And Injunctive Relief was served by U.S. mail on Defendants' Counsel:
Lisa M. Putnam Special Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District ofTexas P.O. Box 1711 Harlingen, Texas 78551
24

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

MAR 3 i ?Onl,

TERESA D. PADILLA, ADELA

)

ESPERANZA GARCIA, MARIA DE LA )

LUZ MATA, SAED ABEL HADI ISMAIL )

SHELBAYEH, ANA RIVERA DE

)

PRINCIPE, SORAYA MOKRY, RAQUEL )

PATINO HERNANDEZ, BEATRIZ

)

ADRIANA ROSALES, ESPERANZA

)

CASTILLO-BANDA, ENEDELIA

)

PEREZ-CASTILLO, YANIDIA PEREZ- )

CASTILLO, IDALIA PEREZ-CASTILLO,)

JOSE LUIS PEREZ-CASTILLO,

)

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF )

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED )

PERSONS

)

)

VS.

)

)

TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY FOR

)

HOMELAND SECURITY, JOHN

)

ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

)

EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., ACTING

)

DIRECTOR FOR THE BUREAU OF

)

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

)

SERVICES, KENNETH PASQUARELL, )

INTERIM REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR )

THE BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND )

IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ALFONSO )

DE LEON, INTERIM DISTRICT

)

DIRECTOR FOR THE HARLINGEN

)

BCIS DISTRICT, SHARON HUDSON, )

INTERIM DISTRICT DIRECTOR FOR )

THE SAN ANTONIO BCIS DISTRICT, )

AND HIPOLITO ACOSTA, INTERIM

)

DISTRICT DIRECTOR FOR THE

)

HOUSTON BCIS DISTRICT

)

\9;chOl6i f\I

Milo'~.,

' Llerlc

ot

Cour!

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER M-03-126

oRDE R
Having come on to be considered Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Docket Entry Number 17) and the Court, after considering the pleadings on file and the arguments of counsel, issues the following ruling.

Plaintiffs have filed this case complaining that federal immigration authorities do not issue temporary proof of lawful immigration status to persons granted lawful permanent residency (LPR) status in removal proceedings. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief against the Defendants. Plaintiffs originally moved for class certification seeking to represent a class "of all persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status in removal proceedings in the Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio Districts of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services ('BCIS') and for whom BCIS fails to issue adequate, temporary documentation evidencing lawful permanent resident status."
The Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, have satisfied the requirements to warrant certification of the below stated class at this time.
It further appears to the Court that this action falls within the category of cases contemplated by Rule 23(b) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states class certification is warranted under said rule if "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."
In this case, Plaintiffs and class members seek broad equitable relief. The Federal Rules do not expressly require class notice in Rule 23 (b) (2) classes, and such notice appears to be
2

discretionary. The Court finds that, in this action, notice to absent class members is not necessary.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED to the extent that the above-captioned case is to be maintained as a class action comprised of: All persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status in removal proceedings conducted by the immigration courts in Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio within the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ/EOIR), or who were or will be granted LPR status by the DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals in cases on appeal from said immigration courts and to whom DHS/USCIS has not issued temporary documentation evidencing LPR status. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the counsel of record for the partie~
DONE on this 3/'-=.. day of March, 2004, at McAllen, Texas.
Ricardo H. H' josa UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 149 Filed in TXSD on 01/25/08 Page 1 of 3

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

TERESA D. PADILLA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., 1
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.

)

M-03-126

)

) )

)

)

)

JOINT MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE ON ACTIVE CALENDAR AND TO TRANSFER CASE TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiffs and defendants hereby request reinstatement of this case on the Court's active
calendar. and move the court to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
The purpose of the motion to transfer is to facilitate a settlement between the parties
reached in December, 2007. The parties settled tllis case and a similar lawsuit brought in the
Northern District of California. Maria Santillan, eta!. v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General,
et al., No. C-04-2686 (N.D. Cal.), No. 06-15366 (9th Cir.), on identical terms, and in a single
agreement. It is in the parties' interest to settle these two class actions on identical tem1s so that
defendants' interaction with class members will be governed by a mliform set of standards during
the pendency of the proposed settlement agreement. It is in the parties' interest to have the
1 On March 3. 2005, Michael Chertoffwas sworn in as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Accordingly, Secretary Chertoff should be substituted for his predecessor. Tom Ridge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(l) (providing for the automatic substitution of a public officer's successor in office where "a public officer is a party to a [district court] action in his official capacity").

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 149 Filed in TXSD on 01/25/08 Page 2 of 3 settlement of these two actions submitted to a single court for preliminary approval, a fairness hearing, and final approval if appropriate, in order to avoid inconsistent or conflicting rulings and deadlines during the approval process. Finally. it is in the interest ofjustice and judicial economy to have the two cases settled on a nationwide basis in a single proceeding. Notice of the proposed settlement and the fairness hearing in the Northern District of California will be provided nationwide. including to class members in the Southern District of Texas, once this case has been transferred and consolidated with the California case.
2

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 149 Filed in TXSD on 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3
For the foregoing reasons, the parties request that the case be reinstated on this Court's active calendar and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dated: January 25. 2008
DONALD J. DE GABRIELLE. JR. United States Attorney Southern District of Texas
LISA M. PUTNAM Special Assistant U.S. Attorney P.O. Box 1711 Harlingen, Texas 78551 (956) 389-7051 Georgia BarNo. 590315 Federal Bar No. 23937
616-4857
MARISOL PEREZ MALDEF 110 Broadway. Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 Tel. (21 0) 224-5476 Fax (21 0) 224-3958

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREYS. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General

s/ Mark C. Walters MARK C. WALTERS Assistant Director

s/ Stephen J. Flynn

STEPHEN J. FLYNN

ELIZABETH J. STEVENS

Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

Office of Immigration Litigation

P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

sf Javier N. Maldonado JAVIER N. MALDONADO Law Office of Javier N. Maldonado P. 0. Box 12424 San Antonio, TX 78212 Tel. (210) 277-1603 Fax (210) 225 3958
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

 
 Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 150 Filed in TXSD on 02/25/08 Page 1 of 2

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

TERESA D. PADILLA, ADELA

)

ESPERANZA GARCIA, MARIA DE LA )

LUZ MATA, SAED ABEL HADI ISMAIL )

SHELBAYEH, ANA RIVERA DE

)

PRINCIPE, SORAYA MOKRY, RAQUEL )

PATINO HERNANDEZ, BEATRIZ

)

ADRIANA ROSALES, ESPERANZA

)

CASTILLO-BANDA, ENEDELIA

)

PEREZ-CASTILLO, YANIDIA PEREZ- )

CASTILLO, IDALIA PEREZ-CASTILLO,)

JOSE LUIS PEREZ-CASTILLO,

)

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF )

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED )

PERSONS

)

)

vs.

)

)

TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY FOR

)

HOMELAND SECURITY, JOHN

)

ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

)

EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., ACTING

)

DIRECTOR FOR THE BUREAU OF

)

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

)

SERVICES, KENNETH PASQUARELL, )

INTERIM REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR )

THE BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND )

IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ALFONSO )

DE LEON, INTERIM DISTRICT

)

DIRECTOR FOR THE HARLINGEN

)

BCIS DISTRICT, SHARON HUDSON, )

INTERIM DISTRICT DIRECTOR FOR )

THE SAN ANTONIO BCIS DISTRICT, )

AND HIPOLITO ACOSTA, INTERIM

)

DISTRICT DIRECTOR FOR THE

)

HOUSTON BCIS DISTRICT

)

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER M-03-126

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT AND TRANSFER On this day, came on to be considered the parties' Joint Motion to Reinstate and Transfer the above referenced case (Docket Entry Number 149), and the Court, after considering same, is of the opinion that said motion should be granted.

Case 7:03-cv-00126 Document 150 Filed in TXSD on 02/25/08 Page 2 of 2

It lS, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the

motion to reinstate the above referenced case is hereby GRANTED,

and this case is hereby transferred to the United States District

Court of California for consolidation with Santillanr et al. v.

Mukaseyr et al., No. C-04-2686 (N.D. Cal.), No. 06-15366 (9th Cir.).

The Clerk shall take the steps necessary to effectuate this

order.

d

;2 ~ DONE on this

day of February, 2008, at McAllen, Texas.

Ricardo H. Hinoj s UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 1 of 35
CLOSED, STAYED, TRANSFERRED
U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (McAllen) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:03−cv−00126

DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED OUT. Padilla, et al v. Ridge, et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/28/2003 Date Terminated: 09/27/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Teresa D. Padilla Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated

represented by Javier N Maldonado Attorney at Law PO Box 12424 San Antonio, TX 78212 210−277−1603 Email: jmaldonado.law@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz DeMott McChesney et al 800 Dolorosa Ste 100 San Antonio, TX 78207 210−354−1844 Fax: 210−212−2116 Email: davida@demottusa.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra Texas Civil Rights Project 1405 Montopolis Dr Austin, TX 78741 512−474−5073 Email: joe.tcrp@gmail.com TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez Attorney at Law 8930 Fourwinds Drive Suite 106 San Antonio, TX 78239 210−590−1844 Fax: 210−590−1845 Email: marisol@demottusa.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales MALDEF 110 Broadway Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: nperales@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 2 of 35

Selena N Solis Office of the Federal Public Defender 700 E San Antonio Ste D401 El Paso, TX 79901 915−534−6525 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jose Luis Guzman Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Eva Guzman Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 3 of 35

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jaime Sanchez Maldonado Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Anita De Alva Mascorro Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 4 of 35

Plaintiff Roberto Carrera Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003
Plaintiff Isaias Toscano Montemayor Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 5 of 35

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Isaul Toscano Montemayor Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Isael Toscano Montemayor Individually and on behalf of all others

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 6 of 35

similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marianela Polnick Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 7 of 35

TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Anselmo Medina Remigio Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yomi Bombata Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 8 of 35

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Celovsky Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sahchart Tancoomtong Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 9 of 35

Plaintiff Ricardo Romero−Cabrera Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003
Plaintiff Yorline Romero−Yanez Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 10 of 35

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Isaac S. Galicia−Gonzalez Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/22/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 11 of 35

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hector Maldonado Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 12 of 35

Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rosa Moreno Moreno Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 13 of 35

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alexandros Karkanis Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joel Martinez−Lara Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 14 of 35

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Roberto Carlos Cruz Granados Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Carol Carson Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 15 of 35

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Guadalupe Hernandez−Hernandez Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gerardo Carmona−Rojas Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 16 of 35

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pedro Perales−Gonzalez Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/26/2003

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Selena N Solis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Tom Ridge Secretary for Homeland Security

represented by Lisa M Putnam Department of Homeland Security P O Box 1711 Harlingen, TX 78551 956−389−7048 Fax: 956−389−7057

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 17 of 35

Email: lisa.putnam@dhs.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C. Walters Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Washington, DC 20044 (202)616−4857 Fax: (202)616−9366 Email: mark.walters@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C Walters U S Dept of Justice Immigration Litigation P O Box 878 Washington, DC 20044 202−616−4857 Fax: 202−616−9366 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen J. Flynn Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616−7186 Fax: (202)616−9366 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Eduardo Aguirre, Jr. Acting Director for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Lisa M Putnam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C. Walters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C Walters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen J. Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kenneth Pasquarell Interim Regional Director for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Lisa M Putnam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C. Walters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C Walters

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 18 of 35

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen J. Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael Trominski Interim District Director for the Harlingen BCIS District

represented by Lisa M Putnam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C. Walters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C Walters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen J. Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sharon J Hudson Interim District Director for the San Antonio BCIS District

represented by Lisa M Putnam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C. Walters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C Walters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen J. Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Hipolito Acosta Interim District Director for the Houston BCIS District

represented by Lisa M Putnam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C. Walters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark C Walters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen J. Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 19 of 35

Plaintiff Elizabeth Aubrecht a/k/a Elizabeth Nguyen
Plaintiff Eden Garza

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 20 of 35

Plaintiff Eden Garza Cadena
Plaintiff Maria de la Luz Mata

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 21 of 35

Plaintiff Mansour R. Mansour
Plaintiff Maria Reyna Bosquez

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 22 of 35

Plaintiff Hector Santos Cardoso
Plaintiff Saed Abdel Hadi Ismail Shelbayeh

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 23 of 35

Plaintiff Mario Domiguez
Plaintiff Rafael Hernandez Lopez

represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Javier N Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Pacifico Berra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anton Armendariz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leticia M Saucedo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisol Linda Perez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Selena N Solis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 24 of 35

Date Filed 05/28/2003
05/28/2003
05/28/2003 05/28/2003 06/11/2003
06/18/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/30/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Mandamus by Teresa D. Padilla, Jose Luis Guzman, Maria Eva Guzman, Jaime Sanchez Maldonado, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul Toscano Montemayor, Isael Toscano Montemayor, Marianela Polnick, Anselmo Medina Remigio, Yomi Bombata, Robert Celovsky, Sahchart Tancoomtong, Ricardo Romero−Cabrera, Yorline Romero−Yanez, Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta, Isaac S. Galicia−Gonzalez, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud filed; FILING FEE $ 150 RECEIPT # 720098 (part 1 of 2) (bgarces) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
1 MOTION for declaratory and injunctive relief by Teresa D. Padilla, Jose Luis Guzman, Maria Eva Guzman, Jaime Sanchez Maldonado, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul Toscano Montemayor, Isael Toscano Montemayor, Marianela Polnick, Anselmo Medina Remigio, Yomi Bombata, Robert Celovsky, Sahchart Tancoomtong, Ricardo Romero−Cabrera, Yorline Romero−Yanez, Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta, Isaac S. Galicia−Gonzalez, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Motion Docket Date 6/17/03 [1−1] motion , filed. (part 2 of 2) (bgarces) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
SUMMONS issued for Atty Gen John Ashcroft; US Atty Office; Office of District Counsel/Harlingen; Office of District Counsel/Houston; Office of District Counsel/San Antonio (bgarces) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
2 Order setting Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference on 2:30 7/9/03 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa and Order to Disclose Interested Persons, filed. () Parties notified. (bgarces) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Teresa D. Padilla, Jose Luis Guzman, Maria Eva Guzman, Jaime Sanchez Maldonado, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul Toscano Montemayor, Isael Toscano Montemayor, Marianela Polnick, Anselmo Medina Remigio, Yomi Bombata, Robert Celovsky, Sahchart Tancoomtong, Ricardo Romero−Cabrera, Yorline Romero−Yanez, Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta, Isaac S. Galicia−Gonzalez, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 6/9/03 as to Atty Gen John Ashcroft; filed; Govt's Answer due on 7/9/03 (bgarces) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 6/5/03 filed as to Office of District Counsel Houston District (bgarces) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 6/5/03 filed as to Office of District Counsel Harlingen District (bgarces) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 6/10/03 filed as to US Atty Office (bgarces) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 6/3/03 filed as to Office of District Counsel San Antonio District (bgarces) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
10 JOINT DISCOVERY/Case Management Plan by Teresa D. Padilla, Jose Luis Guzman, Maria Eva Guzman, Jaime Sanchez Maldonado, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul Toscano Montemayor, Isael Toscano Montemayor, Marianela Polnick, Anselmo Medina Remigio, Yomi Bombata, Robert Celovsky, Sahchart Tancoomtong, Ricardo Romero−Cabrera, Yorline Romero−Yanez, Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta, Isaac S. Galicia−Gonzalez, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 07/01/2003)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 25 of 35

07/02/2003 07/03/2003 07/09/2003 07/22/2003
07/22/2003
07/22/2003 07/25/2003 07/29/2003
07/29/2003
08/01/2003 08/05/2003 08/20/2003 08/25/2003

11 MOTION for Joseph P. Berra to appear pro hac vice by Teresa D. Padilla, et al Plaintiffs, Motion Docket Date forthwith , filed. (mjmarroquin) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
12 ORDER granting [11−1] motion for Joseph P. Berra to appear pro hac vice , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (mjmarroquin) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
Memo to File: In−Chambers conference held; Court encouraged the parties to try to resolve these matters amongst themselves; resetting scheduling conference for 4:00 9/3/03 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa (bgarces) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
13 MOTION for class certifiation by Teresa D. Padilla, Jose Luis Guzman, Maria Eva Guzman, Jaime Sanchez Maldonado, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul Toscano Montemayor, Isael Toscano Montemayor, Marianela Polnick, Anselmo Medina Remigio, Yomi Bombata, Robert Celovsky, Sahchart Tancoomtong, Ricardo Romero−Cabrera, Yorline Romero−Yanez, Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta, Isaac S. Galicia−Gonzalez, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Motion Docket Date 8/11/03 [13−1] motion , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
14 BRIEF by Teresa D. Padilla, Jose Luis Guzman, Maria Eva Guzman, Jaime Sanchez Maldonado, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul Toscano Montemayor, Isael Toscano Montemayor, Marianela Polnick, Anselmo Medina Remigio, Yomi Bombata, Robert Celovsky, Sahchart Tancoomtong, Ricardo Romero−Cabrera, Yorline Romero−Yanez, Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta, Isaac S. Galicia−Gonzalez, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud in support of [13−1] motion for class certifiation , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for Mandamus, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Teresa D. Padilla, et al amending [1−1] complaint , filed. (bgarces) Modified on 07/25/2003 (Entered: 07/22/2003)
16 ORDER striking [13−1] motion for class certification , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (bgarces) (Entered: 07/25/2003)
17 Opposed MOTION class certification by Teresa D. Padilla, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Rosa Moreno Moreno, Alexandros Karkanis, Joel Martinez−Lara, Roberto Carlos Cruz Granados, Carol Carson, Maria Guadalupe Hernandez−Hernandez, Gerardo Carmona−Rojas, Pedro Perales−Gonzalez, Motion Docket Date 8/18/03 [17−1] motion , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
18 BRIEF by Teresa D. Padilla, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Rosa Moreno Moreno, Alexandros Karkanis, Joel Martinez−Lara, Roberto Carlos Cruz Granados, Carol Carson, Maria Guadalupe Hernandez−Hernandez, Gerardo Carmona−Rojas, Pedro Perales−Gonzalez in support of [17−1] motion class certification , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
19 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Leticia M. Saucedo by Teresa D. Padilla, Jaime Sanchez Maldonado, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Rosa Moreno Moreno, Pedro Perales−Gonzalez , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
20 MOTION to dismiss with incorporated points and authorities by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta, Motion Docket Date 8/25/03 [20−1] motion , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
21 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [17−1] motion class certification , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
22 RESPONSE by Teresa D. Padilla, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Rosa Moreno Moreno, Alexandros Karkanis, Joel Martinez−Lara, Roberto Carlos Cruz Granados, Carol

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 26 of 35

08/26/2003
08/26/2003
09/03/2003
09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/22/2003 09/22/2003 09/22/2003 09/22/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003
10/03/2003 10/06/2003 10/10/2003 10/14/2003

Carson, Maria Guadalupe Hernandez−Hernandez, Gerardo Carmona−Rojas, Pedro Perales−Gonzalez to [20−1] motion to dismiss , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
23 MOTION for preliminary injunction by Teresa D. Padilla, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Rosa Moreno Moreno, Alexandros Karkanis, Joel Martinez−Lara, Roberto Carlos Cruz Granados, Carol Carson, Maria Guadalupe Hernandez−Hernandez, Gerardo Carmona−Rojas, Pedro Perales−Gonzalez, Motion Docket Date 9/15/03 [23−1] motion , filed. (mjmarroquin) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
24 MEMORANDUM by Teresa D. Padilla, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Hector Maldonado, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Rosa Moreno Moreno, Alexandros Karkanis, Joel Martinez−Lara, Roberto Carlos Cruz Granados, Carol Carson, Maria Guadalupe Hernandez−Hernandez, Gerardo Carmona−Rojas, Pedro Perales−Gonzalez in support of [23−1] motion for preliminary injunction , filed (mjmarroquin) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
25 Initial Pretrial Conference held before Judge Ricardo H Hinojosa; Ct clerk: Sylvia Martinez; ERO: Tony Tijerina; Apps: Javier Maldonado; Joseph Berra; Lisa Putnam; Court grants the motion to dismiss as to the eight individuals whose claims are now moot but denies the motion as to the other five individuals; parties to file further briefing on the issue of typicality by 9/15/03 as to the motion for class certification; dft to file a response to the motion for preliminary injunction by 9/15/03; Motion hearing on both motions before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa set for 2:30 10/14/03 (bgarces) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
26 SUPPLEMENT to [17−1] motion for class certification by Teresa D. Padilla; et al , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
27 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [23−1] motion for preliminary injunction , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT for Mandamus, Declaratory and Injunctive Releif by Teresa D. Padilla filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
File 1 consist of pleadings 1 − 27 (bgarces) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
29 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file Second Amended Complaint by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date forthwith , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
30 ORDER striking [28−1] amended complaint , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (bgarces) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
31 ORDER granting [29−1] motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (bgarces) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
32 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Teresa D. Padilla, Alexandros Karkanis, amending [1−1] complaint; adding Elizabeth Aubrecht, Eden Garza, Eden Garza Cadena, Maria de la Luz Mata, Mansour R. Mansour, Maria Reyna Bosquez, Santos Cardoso, Saed Abdel Hadi Ismail Shelbayeh, Mario Domiguez, Rafael Hernandez Lopez, filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
33 REPLY by Teresa D. Padilla to response in opposition to [23−1] motion for preliminary injunction , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
34 ANSWER by Tom Ridge, Hipolito Acosta to second amended complaint for mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief, filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
35 Position in RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta to Supplement to [17−1] motion class certification , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
36 Motion Hearing held before Judge Ricardo H Hinojosa; Ct clerk: Sylvia Martinez; ERO: Tony Tijerina; Apps: Javier Maldonado; Joseph Berra; Lisa Putnam; motion for class certification addressed; the Court will certify the class but advises pltf that the present proposed order for giving notice to the class members is not adequate;

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 27 of 35

11/07/2003 11/17/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003
11/25/2003 12/12/2003 12/31/2003 01/26/2004
01/26/2004 01/27/2004
02/09/2004 02/18/2004 02/19/2004
02/20/2004 02/24/2004

pltf to file a proposed order by 11/7/03; dft can respond by 11/17/03; setting status conference for 4:00 11/25/03 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa at which time they can also discuss if a hearing on the preliminary injunction is still necessary and how long the hearing will take; at pltf's counsel request and w/no opposition from the dft, the Court instructs the clerk to keep docket number 28 as the live pleading and not docket number 32. (bgarces) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
37 Proposed Class Certification Order and NOTICE to the Class by Teresa D. Padilla , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
38 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta to [17−1] motion class certification and notice to the class, filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
ORAL ORDER of Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa; 11/25/03 hearing cancelled; parties notified. (bgarces) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
39 Unopposed MOTION for continuance of Nov. 25, 2003 Status Conference by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta, Motion Docket Date forthwith , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
ORAL ORDER of Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa granting [39−1] motion for continuance of Nov. 25, 2003 Status Conference (bgarces) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
40 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file Third Amended Complaint by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date forthwith , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
ORAL ORDER of Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa setting status conference for 4:00 1/26/04 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ; parties notified. (bgarces) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
41 Status Conference held before Judge Ricardo H Hinojosa; C Clerk: Sylvia Martinez; ERO: Tony Tijerina; Apps: Javier Maldonado; Lisa Putnam; Court grants [40−1] motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint; parties instructed to try to work something out with regards to the proposed order giving notice to the class members and this to be filed by 2/18/04; setting status conference 4:00 2/24/04 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ; Court grants oral request for extension of discovery and will issue a docket control order. (bgarces) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
42 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by Teresa D. Padilla amending [32−1] amended complaint , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
43 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 5/3/04 ; motions for extension of time to complete discovery 4/2/04; Deadline for filing all dispositive motions 5/13/04 ; Deadline for filing non−dispositive motions 5/13/04 ; Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 6/3/04 ; Final Pretrial Conference 2:30 6/10/04 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa , entered. Parties notified. ( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (bgarces) Modified on 01/28/2004 (Entered: 01/28/2004)
44 ANSWER by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta to third amended complaint, filed. (bgarces) Modified on 02/18/2004 (Entered: 02/09/2004)
45 (Opposed) Proposed Class Certifcation Order by Teresa D. Padilla , filed (bgarces) Modified on 02/18/2004 (Entered: 02/18/2004)
46 Continued RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [17−1] motion class certification and proposed class certification order filed (bgarces) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
File 2 consist of pleadings 1 − 43 (bgarces) Modified on 02/20/2004 (Entered: 02/20/2004)
47 MOTION for David Armendariz to appear pro hac vice by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date forthwith , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 02/27/2004)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 28 of 35

02/24/2004
03/29/2004
03/29/2004 03/31/2004 04/19/2004 04/21/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/07/2004 05/11/2004
05/18/2004 05/18/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004 06/01/2004

48 Status Conference held before Judge Ricardo H Hinojosa; Ct Clerk: Sylvia Martinez; ERO: Tony Tijerina; Apps: Javier Maldonado; David Armendariz; Lisa Putnam; Court grants [47−1] motion for David Armendariz to appear pro hac vice the Court will be signing some form of order in this case and will discuss the order with the parties via a telephone conference call; setting telephone conference for 3:50 3/29/04 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ; to be initiated by the Court. (bgarces) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
49 Tele−Conference held before Judge Ricardo H Hinojosa; Ct Clerk: Sylvia Martinez; ERO: Carmel Phelps; Apps: Javier Maldonado; Lisa Putnam; the court reviews w/the parties the proposed class certification order; after some discussion the Court will enter an order; the Court denies [23−1] motion for preliminary injunction; there is presently a pretrial conference set for 6/10/04 at which time the Court will address the permanent injunction. (bgarces) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
Deadline updated; mooting [1−1] motion for declaratory and injunctive relief (bgarces) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
50 ORDER granting [17−1] motion class certification to the extent that the case is to be maintained as a class action comprised as stated in this order , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (bgarces) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
51 (MOTION) Notice of withdrawal of Joseph P Barrera by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date 5/9/04 [51−1], filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
52 ORDER granting [51−1] motion withdrawal of Joseph P Barrera , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (bgarces) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
53 Opposed MOTION for leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date 5/25/04 [53−1] motion , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
54 Opposed MOTION to compel answers to requests for interrogatories and requests for production of documents and things by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date 5/25/04 [54−1] motion , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
55 MEMORANDUM by Teresa D. Padilla in support of [54−1] motion to compel answers to requests for interrogatories and requests for production of documents and things , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
56 Unopposed MOTION to extend the motion deadline by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon Hudson, Hipolito Acosta, Motion Docket Date forthwith , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
57 ORDER resetting Deadline for filing all dispositive motions 6/14/04 ; Deadline for filing non−dispositive motions 6/14/04 ; Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 7/29/04 ; Final Pretrial Conference 2:30 8/5/04 granting [56−1] motion to extend the motion deadline before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa , entered. Parties notified. ( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (bgarces) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
58 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [53−1] motion for leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
59 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [54−1] motion to compel answers to requests for interrogatories and requests for production of documents and things , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
60 REPLY by Teresa D. Padilla to response in opposition to [53−1] motion for leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
61 REPLY by Teresa D. Padilla to response to [54−1] motion to compel answers to requests for interrogatories and requests for production of documents and things , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
62 SUPPLEMENT to Memorandum in Support of [54−1] motion to compel answers to requests for interrogatories and requests for production of and things by Teresa D. Padilla , filed. (exhibits located in separate folder/not imaged) (bgarces)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 29 of 35

06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004
06/18/2004 06/25/2004
06/25/2004 06/25/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/14/2004
07/19/2004 07/19/2004 07/19/2004 07/20/2004 07/23/2004

(Entered: 06/01/2004)
63 MOTION for summary judgment by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date 7/4/04 [63−1] motion , filed. (mjmarroquin) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
64 MEMORANDUM by Teresa D. Padilla in support of [63−1] motion for summary judgment , filed. (Exhibits located in separate expandable file, not imaged.) (mjmarroquin) Modified on 06/16/2004 (Entered: 06/16/2004)
65 OPPOSED MOTION for leave to file Their Fifth Amended Complaint by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date 7/4/04 [65−1] , filed. (mjmarroquin) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
66 Opposed MOTION to amend Class Certification Order by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date 7/4/04 [66−1] motion , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
67 MOTION for summary judgment with incorporated points and authorities by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta, Motion Docket Date 7/4/04 [67−1] motion , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
File 3 consist of pleadings 44 − 65 (bgarces) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
68 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [65−1] motion for leave to file Their Fifth Amended Complaint , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
69 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [66−1] motion to amend Class Certification Order , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
70 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [67−1] motion for summary judgment , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
71 RESPONSE by Teresa D. Padilla in opposition to [67−1] motion for summary judgment , filed (part 1 of 2) (bgarces) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
71 Further support by Teresa D. Padilla of [63−1] motion for summary judgment , filed. (part 2 of 2) (bgarces) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
72 REPLY by Teresa D. Padilla to opposition to [65−1] motion for leave to file Their Fifth Amended Complaint, and to opposition [66−1] motion to amend Class Certification Order , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
73 JOINT MOTION to cancel Joint Pretrial Order &Pretrial Conference Deadlines by Teresa D. Padilla, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
74 Response by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta to opposition to [67−1] motion for summary judgment , filed (part 1 of 3) (bgarces) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
74 SUPPLEMENT to [67−1] motion for summary judgment by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta , filed. (part 2 of 3) (bgarces) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
74 NOTICE to the Court of Substantially Indentical Cases in California and Florida by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta , filed (part 3 of 3) (bgarces) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
File 4 consist of pleadings 66 to 73 (bgarces) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
75 OPPOSED MOTION to strike Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment; Supplement to Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and Notice to the Court of substantially identical cases in California and Florida and the accompanying declaration of Janis Ann Sposato,

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 30 of 35

07/29/2004 08/04/2004
08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/06/2004 08/06/2004 08/19/2004
08/19/2004 08/20/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004

dated July 16, 2004 by Teresa D. Padilla, Motion Docket Date 8/12/04 [75−1] motion , filed. (mjmarroquin) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
Proposed joint pre−trial order received from Teresa D. Padilla, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta, Alexandros Karkanis, Elizabeth Aubrecht, Eden Garza, Eden Garza Cadena, Maria de la Luz Mata, Mansour R. Mansour, Maria Reyna Bosquez, Hector Santos Cardoso, Saed Abdel Hadi Ismail Shelbayeh, Mario Domiguez, Rafael Hernandez Lopez (bgarces) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
76 RESPONSE by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta in opposition to [75−1] motion to strike Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment; Supplement to Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and Notice to the Court of substantially identical cases in California and Florida and the accompanying declaration of Janis Ann Sposato, dated July 16, 2004 , filed (bgarces) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
ORAL ORDER of Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa resetting pretrial conference for 4:00 8/9/04 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa , parties notified. (bgarces) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
77 Unopposed MOTION for continuance of Pretrial Conference Scheduled for 8/9/04 by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta, Motion Docket Date forthwith , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
ORAL ORDER of Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa granting [77−1] motion for continuance of Pretrial Conference Scheduled for 8/9/04; parties notified. (bgarces) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
ORAL ORDER of Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa setting pretrial conference for 4:00 8/19/04 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ; parties notified. (bgarces) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
78 Pretrial Conference held before Judge Ricardo H Hinojosa; C Clerk: Sylvia Martinez; ERO: Tony Tijerina; Apps: Javier Maldonado; David Armendariz; Lisa Putnam; the Court makes the following rulings: granting [65−1] motion for leave to file Fifth Amended Complaint; mooting [53−1] motion for leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint; granting in part, denying in part [54−1] motion to compel; Ms. Putnam to provide information she has been ordered to w/i 45 from today; denying [75−1] motion to strike; denying [67−1] motion for summary judgment; denying [63−1] motion for summary judgment; mooting [73−1] joint motion to cancel Joint Pretrial Order &Pretrial Conference Deadlines granting [66−1] motion to amend Class Certification Order; the court will issue a docket control order. (bgarces) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
79 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT for Mandamus, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Teresa D. Padilla amending [42−1] amended complaint , filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
80 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 10/18/04 ; Motions for extension of time 10/28/04; Deadline for filing all dispositive motions 10/18/04 ; Deadline for filing non−dispositive motions 10/18/04 ; Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 12/1/04 ; Final Pretrial Conference 2:30 12/8/04 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa , entered. Parties notified. ( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) (bgarces) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
81 Defendants' ANSWER to Fourth (Fifth) Amended Complaint by Hipolito Acosta, Eduardo Aguirre Jr., Sharon J Hudson, Kenneth Pasquarell, Tom Ridge, Michael Trominski, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/05/2004)
82 DOCUMENT DOCKETED IN INCORRECT CASE: NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order Granting In Part and Denying in Part Respondents' Motion to Dismiss by all defendants , filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bgarces, ) Modified on 9/5/2004 (bgarces, ). (Entered: 09/05/2004)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 31 of 35

10/04/2004 10/18/2004 10/18/2004 10/18/2004 10/18/2004 10/19/2004 10/21/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 11/03/2004
11/08/2004 11/12/2004 11/12/2004 11/17/2004 11/17/2004

83 TRANSCRIPT of Pre−Trial Conference held on 08/19/04 before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Court Reporter: ERO: Antonio Tijerina , filed. (atijerina, ) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
84 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/7/2004. (exhibits located in separate folder/not imaged) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
85 MEMORANDUM in support of 84 MOTION for Summary Judgment by all plaintiffs, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
86 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment by all defendants, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/7/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
87 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in support of 86 MOTION for Summary Judgment by all defendants, filed. (Attachments: # 1 continuation of exhibits)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
88 Unopposed MOTION to Supplement Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date forthwith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
89 ORDER granting 88 Motion to Supplement .( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
90 MOTION to Strike or, alternatively, to Permit Defts to Conduct Additional Discovery by all defendants, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/16/2004. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
91 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in support of 90 MOTION to Strike or alternatively to permit deft's to conduct additional discovery by all defendants, filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
92 MOTION to Compel and for Sanctions by Teresa D. Padilla, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/17/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
93 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth J Stevens on behalf of all defendants, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
94 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen J Flynn on behalf of all defendants, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
95 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark C Walters on behalf of all defendants, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
96 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response s to Their Respective Opposing Party's Summary Judgment Motion by all parties, filed. Motion Docket Date forthwith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
97 Notice of Setting: Set Hearings as to 90 MOTION for Discovery MOTION to Strike. Motion Hearing set for 11/23/2004 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.() Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
98 RESPONSE in Opposition to 92 MOTION to Compel MOTION for Sanctions filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Proposed Order)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
99 RESPONSE to 90 MOTION for Discovery or alternatively MOTION to Strike filed by Eden Garza Cadena, Maria Reyna Bosquez, Hector Santos Cardoso. (Attachments: # 1 exhibits)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
100 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to 84 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
101 RESPONSE in Opposition to 86 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits # 2 Exhibits)(bgarces, ) (Entered:

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 32 of 35

11/23/2004
11/23/2004 12/01/2004 12/08/2004 12/10/2004 12/14/2004 12/15/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004
01/07/2005 01/10/2005 01/27/2005 01/27/2005

11/18/2004)
102 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa; the parties to fax to the Court by 5:00 pm on Monday, a list of individuals that the Court should not consider their declarations; Motion Hearing set for 12/16/2004 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa as to both motions for summary judgment; at that time if the Court grants the motion, the issue of the depositions will be moot; if not they can discuss a schedule as to when the depositions can be completed; the 12/9/04 pretrial conference is cancelled. Appearances: David Anton Armendariz, Javier N Maldonado, Lisa M Putnam, Mark C Walters.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
103 MOTION to Strike 98 Response in Opposition to Motion to compel discovery and for sanctions by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/13/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
104 RESPONSE in Opposition to 103 MOTION to Strike 98 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Putnam, Lisa) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
105 Opposed MOTION to Submit Supplementary Evidence in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/28/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Exhibits located in separate folder/not imaged)(bgarces, ) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
106 RESPONSE to 105 MOTION to Supplement Evidence in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Walters, Mark) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
107 Reply to Response to 105 MOTION to Supplement Evidence in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Armendariz, David) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
ORAL ORDER of Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa resetting Motion Hearing for 2:30 PM 12/16/2004 (previously set for 4:00 PM 12/16/2004) before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.() Parties notified.(mmarroquin, ) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
108 MOTION for Marisol Perez to Appear Pro Hac Vice by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date forthwith. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
109 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 12/16/2004; Court grants 108 MOTION for Marisol Perez to Appear Pro Hac Vice; Court denies 103 MOTION to Strike; mooting 96 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response s to Their Respective Opposing Party's Summary Judgment Motion, Court grants 105 MOTION to Supplement Evidence in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment; to be done by 1/10/05, Motion Hearing on motions for summary judgment set for 2/1/2005 at 02:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances:Marisol Perez. David Anton Armendariz, Stephen G Flynn, Javier N Maldonado, Lisa M Putnam, Mark C Walters.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(bgarces, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/21/2004 (bgarces, ). (Entered: 12/17/2004)
111 NOTICE of Appearance by Marisol Perez on behalf of all plaintiffs, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
110 RESPONSE in Opposition to 105 MOTION to Supplement Evidence in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Opposition to Plaintiffs' Supplement)(Walters, Mark) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
112 Opposed MOTION to Continue February 1, 2005 Hearing by all defendants, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/16/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit New Regulation Governing Identity, Law Enforcement, and Security Investigations)(Walters, Mark) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
113 RESPONSE in Opposition to 112 Opposed MOTION to Continue February 1, 2005 Hearing filed by all plaintiffs. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/27/2005)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 33 of 35

02/10/2005 03/02/2005 03/10/2005 05/05/2005 05/05/2005 06/10/2005 06/16/2005
06/29/2005
07/05/2005 07/14/2005
07/19/2005 07/23/2005
07/23/2005 07/23/2005 08/17/2005 08/29/2005 09/09/2005

114 Opposed MOTION to Dismiss by all defendants, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/2/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order of Dismissal)(Walters, Mark) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
115 RESPONSE in Opposition to 114 Opposed MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Armendariz, David) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
116 Reply in Support of 114 Opposed MOTION to Dismiss filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Three exhibits attached to reply brief)(Walters, Mark) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
117 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Motion Hearing reset for 6/14/2005 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
*** File 7 consist of pleadings 101 − 115 (bgarces, ) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
118 Unopposed MOTION to Supplement as to 84 MOTION for Summary Judgment by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/30/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Proposed Order)(Armendariz, David) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
119 RESPONSE to 118 Unopposed MOTION to Supplement as to 84 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, Jr, Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter dtd 6−9−05)(Putnam, Lisa) (Entered: 06/16/2005)
120 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/19/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Proposed Order)(Armendariz, David) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
121 NOTICE by all plaintiffs, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Armendariz, David) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
122 RESPONSE in Opposition to 120 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, Jr, Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Putnam, Lisa) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
123 Unopposed MOTION to Strike 120 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/8/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Armendariz, David) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
124 ORDER granting 123 Unopposed MOTION to Strike 120 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, Motions mooting 120 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(fgarcia, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
125 ORDER granting 118 Unopposed MOTION to Supplement as to 84 MOTION for Summary Judgment ( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(fgarcia, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
126 EXHIBITS Supplementary Evidence in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment by all plaintiffs, filed.(fgarcia, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
127 Agreed MOTION to Continue August 31, 2005 hearing by all defendants, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/6/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting continuance)(Walters, Mark) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
128 NOTICE To The Court by Teresa D. Padilla, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Armendariz, David) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
129 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 9/9/2005. Court addresses Pltfs' pending motions (#s 84 and 86) and Defts' Motion to Dismiss (#114). Court instructs parties to refile new motion for summary judgment incorporating their arguments here &addressing California descision &new regulations by 11/1/05. Court sets hearing on motions for 12/14/05 at 4:00 pm. Mooting 114 Opposed MOTION to Dismiss, 84 MOTION

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 34 of 35

10/11/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 12/14/2005
12/27/2005 01/05/2006 01/11/2006 02/24/2006 03/22/2006
04/18/2006 12/27/2006
01/02/2007

for Summary Judgment, 86 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2005 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances: David Anton Armendariz, Stephen G Flynn, Lisa M Putnam, Mark C Walters.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(fgarcia, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
130 NOTICE of Withdrawal of atty David Anton Armendariz by all plaintiffs, filed. (bgarces) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
131 Unopposed MOTION to Hold in Abeyance by all defendants, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/7/2005. (Walters, Mark) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
132 PROPOSED ORDER re: 131 Unopposed MOTION to Hold in Abeyance, filed.(Walters, Mark) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
133 STATUS REPORT by Teresa D. Padilla, Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, Jr, Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta, Alexandros Karkanis, Elizabeth Aubrecht, Eden Garza, Eden Garza Cadena, Maria de la Luz Mata, Mansour R. Mansour, Maria Reyna Bosquez, Hector Santos Cardoso, Saed Abdel Hadi Ismail Shelbayeh, Mario Domiguez, Rafael Hernandez Lopez, filed.(Putnam, Lisa) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
134 NOTICE of Change of Address by Nina Perales and Marisol L. Perez, counsel for all plaintiffs, filed. (fgarcia, ) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
135 NOTICE to the Court of Permanent Injunction Entered Against Defendants in Related Case Santillan v. Gonzales by all plaintiffs, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
136 SUPPLEMENT to 135 Notice (Other) by all defendants, filed.(Putnam, Lisa) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
137 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified Motion Hearing set for 3/22/2006 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa, filed. (fgarcia, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
138 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. MOTION HEARING held on 3/22/2006. Court notes parties did not re−file motions for summary judgment pursuant to its directions at the 9/9/05 hearing but instead filed Unopposed Motion to Hold in Abeyance. Court Denies motions for summary judgments at the present time without prejudice to refiling and GRANTS 131 Unopposed MOTION to Hold in Abeyance pending the California case. Court sets case for Status Conference for January 5, 2007 at 2:30 pm. If ruling has not been handed down in California case before 1/5/07 parties can file motion for continuance. If ruling is handed down before 1/5/07 Court requests parties file something in this case 20 days from the ruling indicating to the Court that a hearing will be necessary. Status Conference set for 1/5/2007 at 02:30 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Appearances:David Guerra. Javier N Maldonado, Mark C Walters.(ERO:Tony Tijerina), filed.(fgarcia, ) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
139 NOTICE of Change of Address by Javier N. Maldonado, counsel for all plaintiffs, filed. (fgarcia, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
140 Joint MOTION to Continue Status Hearing by Marianela Polnick, Anselmo Medina Remigio, Yomi Bombata, Robert Celovsky, Sahchart Tancoomtong, Ricardo Romero−Cabrera, Yorline Romero−Yanez, Divyeshbhai G. Bhakta, Isaac S. Galicia−Gonzalez, Hector Maldonado, Teresa D. Padilla, Ayman Mustafa Ali Mahmoud, Rosa Moreno Moreno, Alexandros Karkanis, Joel Martinez−Lara, Jose Luis Guzman, Roberto Carlos Cruz Granados, Carol Carson, Maria Guadalupe Hernandez−Hernandez, Gerardo Carmona−Rojas, Pedro Perales−Gonzalez, Elizabeth Aubrecht, Eden Garza, Eden Garza Cadena, Maria de la Luz Mata, Mansour R. Mansour, Maria Eva Guzman, Maria Reyna Bosquez, Hector Santos Cardoso, Saed Abdel Hadi Ismail Shelbayeh, Mario Domiguez, Rafael Hernandez Lopez, Jaime Sanchez Maldonado, Anita De Alva Mascorro, Roberto Carrera, Isaias Toscano Montemayor, Isaul Toscano Montemayor, Isael Toscano Montemayor, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/16/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
ORAL ORDER granting 140 Joint MOTION to Continue Status Hearing until further notice Parties notified.(bgarces) (Entered: 01/02/2007)

Case: 7:03-cv-00126 As of: 06/08/2012 12:41 PM CDT 35 of 35

01/11/2007 06/26/2007 06/27/2007 08/10/2007
09/06/2007 09/06/2007 09/27/2007 10/31/2007 01/18/2008 01/23/2008 01/25/2008
02/25/2008 02/26/2008

141 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified Status Conference set for 7/16/2007 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa, filed. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
142 MOTION for Telephonic Status Conference or, Alternatively, Continuance of July 16, 2007 Hearing Conference by Tom Ridge, Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/16/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Putnam, Lisa) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
ORAL ORDER by Judge Ricardo H Hinojosa: granting 142 MOTION for Continuance of July 16, 2007 Hearing; Status Conference reset for 8/10/2007 at 04:00 PM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
143 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 8/10/2007. Parties announce they are waiting for the resolution to the companion case in California but they are also finalizing a resolution to this case. After some discussion the Court sets a Telephone Conference call so that the parties can advise the Court how they wish to proceed. Telephone Conference set for 9/7/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa. The Court will place the call. Appearances: Javier N Maldonado, Mark C. Walters.(ERO:Tony Tijerina(4:15−4:19), filed.(smartinez, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/15/2007 (bgarces, ). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
144 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of Hearing by all plaintiffs, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/26/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Maldonado, Javier) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
ORAL ORDER by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa: granting 144 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of telephone conference; telephone conference of 9/7/07 is cancelled until further notice. Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
145 INDEFINITE STAY ORDER.( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
146 NOTICE of Change of Address by Javier N. Maldonado, counsel for all plaintiffs, filed. (Maldonado, Javier) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
147 Joint MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California by Tom Ridge, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/7/2008. (Walters, Mark) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
148 ORDER striking 147 Motion to Reinstate Case on Active Calendar and Transfer Case.( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
149 Joint MOTION to Reinstate Case to the Active Calendar and to Transfer Case to the Northern District of California by Tom Ridge, Eduardo Aguirre, Jr, Kenneth Pasquarell, Michael Trominski, Sharon J Hudson, Hipolito Acosta, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/14/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Putnam, Lisa) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
150 ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT AND TRANSFER CASE to USDC−California; granting 149 Joint MOTION to Reinstate Case to the Active Calendar and to Transfer Case to the Northern District of California.( Signed by Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa ) Parties notified.(bgarces, ) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
151 Interdistrict transfer to Northern District of California. Certified copy of transfer order will be sent. (bgarces, ) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

 
 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

 
 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