Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02686/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02686-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA SANTILLAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the

United States; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security; THE UNITED

STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SERVICES (USCIS); EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR.,

USCIS Director; DAVID STILL, USCIS San Francisco

District Director,

 Defendants. 

No. C 04-02686 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Permanent Injunction

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

permanent resident status by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review and to

whom the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has failed to issue evidence of status as a

lawful permanent resident. Following this court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and

request for a permanent injunction, see Santillan v. Gonzales, 388 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2005)

(Patel, J.), the court requested proposals from both parties as to the appropriate scope of the injunction. 

Having considered the proposals of both parties, as well as the record relied upon by this court in granting

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, for the reasons set forth below the court issues the following

permanent injunction.

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

INTRODUCTION

The factual history of this case is well documented in the court’s previous orders. See Santillan,

388 F. Supp. 2d at 1065 (granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment); Santillan v. Gonzales, No. C

04-02686 MHP, 2005 WL 1592872 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2005) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss);

Santillan v. Ashcroft, No. C 04-02686 MHP, 2004 WL 2297990 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004) (granting

plaintiffs’ motion for class certification). In brief, plaintiffs were granted the status of lawful permanent

resident (“LPR”) by Immigration Judges or by the Board of Immigration Appeals, constituent courts of the

Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). Following the EOIR’s

determination, plaintiffs sought documentation of their adjusted status as LPRs from their local United

States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) sub-office, through a process called Alien

Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication (“ADIT”) processing. Plaintiffs have not yet

received the requested documentation of their permanent resident status.

The class is divided into two subclasses based on differences in the procedures through which class

members were adjudicated to be lawful permanent residents. Members of the pre-April 1, 2005 subclass

were granted LPR status under regulations in force prior to April 1, 2005. Under the pre-April 1

regulations, an alien seeking LPR status was not required to undergo any background checks prior to his or

her EOIR adjudication. Thus members of the pre-April 1 subclass may have been granted LPR status

without having completed the background checks now required by USCIS before issuing permanent

documentation. In contrast, members of the post-April 1 subclass were required to complete the

mandatory background checks prior to being granted LPR status.

Prior to 2001, an LPR awaiting permanent documentation could have obtained temporary

documentation—often a special stamp on the LPR’s passport—simply by contacting USCIS and

presenting a copy of the EOIR order. USCIS ceased granting temporary documentation as a general

practice some time after September 11, 2001.

Throughout this litigation, and again at the hearing regarding the scope of the permanent injunction,

defendants have attempted to justify their decision to cease issuing temporary documentation and any

delays in issuing permanent documentation by appealing to national security concerns. Although

defendants’ concerns are illogical and unacceptably vague as a legal justification for withholding

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

documentation—an issue explored at great length in this court’s order on plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment—for purposes of crafting an appropriate injunction it is useful to divide the stated concerns into

three categories.

First, defendants are concerned about verifying the identity of LPRs who seek permanent

documentation and verifying that each person requesting documentation has in fact been granted LPR

status. As a result of defendants’ Byzantine organizational structure and antique computer systems, USCIS

is forced to obtain a paper record of each adjudication and to manually match that record with the alien

who appears at a USCIS office seeking status documentation. In order to verify the alien’s identity,

defendants may ask the alien a series of personal questions based on information in the alien’s file (the “Afile”).

Second, defendants are concerned about completing background checks prior to issuing any form

of documentation. As explained in this court’s previous order, the two required checks are an FBI

fingerprint check and an IBIS name check. At the preliminary injunction hearing, defendants also suggested

that they will perform a third check—an FBI name check—in some cases, and will withhold documentation

until the name check is complete.

Third, defendants are concerned about collecting so-called “biometric” data—fingerprints,

photographs, and the like—from LPRs prior to issuing documentation. The biometric data is used to create

the permanent LPR documentation, commonly known as a “green card.” Defendants are unable to collect

biometric data themselves. Instead, the collection process is outsourced to so-called “application support

centers,” at which the LPRs are required to make a separate appointment. The application support centers

send the biometric data directly to the facility that processes green cards. According to defendants, green

cards are more secure than the previously issued temporary documentation. In support of their argument

that they are legally precluded from issuing temporary documentation, defendants cite 8 U.S.C. section

1732(b), which states in relevant part that “[n]ot later than October 26, 2004, the Attorney General and the

Secretary of State shall issue to aliens only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and other travel and

entry documents that use biometric identifiers.”

Weighing against defendants’ purported national security concerns are the real and substantial

harms suffered by class members who are unable to work lawfully or travel abroad to see family without

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 3 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

status documentation. These rights are vested from the moment class members are granted LPR status,

and defendants’ withholding documentation from them prevents class members from exercising their lawful

rights. Many class members, particularly members of the pre-April 1 subclass, have waited extraordinary

lengths of time—time measured in months and years—for the documentation which secures their ability to

live as lawful residents of this country. In keeping with this court’s previous order, the injunction set forth

below must not unreasonably delay the issuance of such documentation.

Fortunately, the parties are in general agreement as to the timeline and procedures to be followed in

the (according to defendants) normal case where each of defendants’ security concerns can be addressed

in a timely fashion. The parties diverge sharply, however, as to the appropriate course of action when the

process breaks down. Because of defendants’ needlessly complex bureaucracy, many things may in fact

go wrong, and often do, including the following: (1) USCIS may not receive notification of the EOIR

adjudication; (2) USCIS may not receive the A-file, which contains personal information used to identify

the LPR once he or she reports to USCIS to obtain documentation; (3) the security checks may not be

completed on time; and (4) the application support center may not follow the proper procedure in collecting

biometric data. Plaintiffs argue that in the event of a problem attributable to defendants’ internal

communication or processes, defendants should be required to issue some form of temporary

documentation on the same timeline as specified for the normal case, to be followed later by permanent

documentation once the problem is resolved. Defendants propose that no documentation be issued in the

event of a problem, but rather that the LPR be responsible for checking on the status of the documentation

periodically until permanent documentation can be issued. Defendant further proposes a complex process

of internal reviews of these delayed cases at six-month intervals, but does not wish to guarantee issuance of

documentation within a fixed period of time.

The obvious problem with defendants’ proposal is that it does not depart in any meaningful way

from the status quo. Defendants point to certain process changes—such as the creation of a special form

that can be used to convey to USCIS all of the information necessary to produce a green card without the

need for USCIS to obtain the A-file—but these changes are of an incremental nature and do not provide

LPRs with the requisite level of assurance that their employment and travel interests will be protected.

Nor do defendants’ security concerns justify withholding documentation beyond a prescribed

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 4 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

reasonable period of time. With respect to the first concern—identifying LPRs and verifying the grant of

LPR status—the court is confident that defendants are sufficiently resourceful to find a way of doing so

adequately in all cases. As was discussed at the preliminary injunction hearing, defendants have at their

disposal a variety of records systems that may contain information about the LPR seeking documentation. 

Defendants may also require the LPR to bring valid, secure, photographic identification to the USCIS

appointment.

With respect to the second security concern, performing background checks, the court has already

discussed at great length why defendants’ arguments are unsupported by the factual record or common

sense.1

 The class members have all been through EOIR adjudication, in which the Department of

Homeland Security is represented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendants have not

identified a single class member, past or present, who is a potential threat to national security. The

background checks, by defendants’ own admission, are ineffective in identifying the “young mujahideen

with clean records” whom the government fears most. Finally, defendants are free to pursue additional

security checks once status documentation issues and to commence removal proceedings—including

detention which is beyond the review of this court—in the event that an actual concern arises. 

Finally, with respect to the third concern—issuing secure documentation—the court has the

following observations. Defendants conceded at the injunction hearing that although the practice of issuing

temporary documentation has ceased as a general matter, temporary documentation continues to be issued

in limited cases. Defendants have also strenuously argued that in the vast majority of cases LPRs will be

able to obtain permanent documentation on the specified timeline. Requiring defendants to issue temporary

documentation in the limited number of cases where the normal documentation process breaks down

should therefore not result in the creation of a significant volume of temporary documents.

The court also notes that the statute cited by defendants, 8 U.S.C. section 1732(b), pertains only to

travel documentation and does not prevent defendants from issuing temporary, unsecure employment

documentation. With respect to travel documents, defendants are free to incorporate as many security

measures into the temporary documentation as they are able, so long as temporary documentation is timely

issued.

Undermining all of defendants’ security arguments is the faulty premise that the current state of

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 5 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

affairs with respect to class members is “secure.” Defendants acknowledged at the injunction hearing that

they do not possess any accurate records of who the class members are, much less where they currently

reside. Class members are presently forced to work and travel internationally, if at all, through unlawful

means. To borrow defendants’ own term, the class members live in the “shadow[s].” The injunction set

forth below gives defendants the opportunity to integrate them into the light of lawful society. The

government’s notion that aliens running about without identification provides a more secure situation than

aliens with documentation is absurd.

Based on the foregoing observations, the history of rulings in this case, the arguments of the parties,

and the factual record submitted to the court, the court issues the following injunction.

INJUNCTION

I. POST-APRIL 1 SUBCLASS: PROCEDURES AND TIME PERIODS FOR ISSUANCE OF

STATUS DOCUMENTATION 

A. DHS’s “Post-Order Instructions” on Obtaining Status Documentation Provided to Aliens

With Orders Evidencing LPR Status from EOIR

1. At the conclusion of the EOIR Immigration Court proceedings, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) counsel shall provide aliens with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)

“Post-Order Instructions” for making a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)

appointment for processing of status documentation. In decisions granting aliens relief from removal, the

EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals shall include a notice to aliens with information on how to access

DHS procedures for obtaining status documentation.

2. A notice of documentation procedures shall be maintained on the USCIS website. As appropriate,

DHS shall provide hyperlinks to this posted notice from other websites maintained by DHS. The

Department of Justice (“DOJ”) shall also provide hyperlinks to this notice from appropriate websites.

B. Notice of Final EOIR Order Provided to USCIS by ICE 

1. Within three business days of an EOIR order becoming final, local DHS/ICE Chief Counsel offices

shall deliver to USCIS a notice of the final EOIR order via an ICE form (the “Background Check Registry”

notice). The form shall provide information that USCIS requires to process an alien for status

documentation without the need to obtain the alien’s A-file. ICE’s form shall also verify completion of all

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 6 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

required security and background checks, provide the alien’s Class of Admission code, and, where

applicable, indicate that a visa number has been obtained from the Department of State. ICE shall

promptly provide an additional copy of the Background Check Registry to USCIS upon request if, for any

reason, the original is not available when the alien appears with proof of a final grant of relief. 

C. Alien Makes and Attends USCIS Appointments for Documentation Processing

and Biometrics Collection; Permanent Resident Card Mailed to Alien

1. An alien who has received an EOIR order evidencing a grant of LPR status will make an online

InfoPass appointment and will appear at a local USCIS office pursuant to the DHS Post-Order

Instructions. If the alien or his representative is unable to access a computer or obtain assistance to access

one, or if the alien resides in a district where InfoPass indicates that there are no appointments available, the

alien may go to a local USCIS office for assistance and USCIS shall schedule an InfoPass appointment for

the alien within two weeks of the alien’s visit to the USCIS office.

2. At the appointment, USCIS will verify the identity of the alien and will ensure that the same alien

has received a final EOIR order of relief by confirming that an ICE notice of such order has been received

for the alien. The copy of the EOIR order or decision brought by the alien to his appointment will be

compared to the ICE notice. If there are discrepancies, USCIS may need to contact the relevant ICE

Chief Counsel’s Office to confirm accurate information. If the ICE notice has not arrived in a timely manner

before the alien appears for an appointment, USCIS shall obtain the notice from ICE. ICE shall promptly

assist USCIS if aliens appear with EOIR orders and there is a need to verify that a final grant has been

issued.

3. If the alien’s biometrics have not been previously obtained in a manner that can be retrieved by

USCIS for card production, the alien shall be scheduled at an Application Support Center (“ASC”) for

biometrics capture within 15 days of the initial InfoPass appointment. The alien shall not be required to pay

the ASC biometrics collection fee a second time if the alien can demonstrate prior payment of a biometrics

collection fee. USCIS will also use the biometrics to assist with identity verification, where necessary.

4. A Permanent Resident Card (I-551) shall be produced and mailed from the DHS Integrated Card

Production System (ICPS) facility within 15 days of capture of the alien’s biometrics at the ASC, or 30

days from the alien’s USCIS InfoPass appointment, whichever date is later. 

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 7 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

5. If DHS fails to produce and mail a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) to an alien within the time

period prescribed in paragraph 4 of this Section, the alien may appear without an appointment at his or her

local USCIS office and the USCIS shall issue temporary documentation of legal status sufficient to secure

the rights of legal permanent residency, such as a temporary I-551 stamp in a valid passport or an

Employment Authorization Document. Any such temporary documentation shall be valid for at least six

months. DHS shall issue a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) to the alien within six months of issuing the

temporary documentation.

D. Extensions and Tolling of Time Periods to Issue Status Documentation in Certain Cases

1. The time periods above shall be tolled by any number of days that a class member fails to comply

with DHS instructions that are issued consistent with this injunction.

II. PRE-APRIL 1 SUBCLASS: PROCEDURES AND TIME PERIODS FOR ISSUANCE OF 

STATUS DOCUMENTATION 

A. Notification to Subclass Members of Procedures 

1. Notice to individuals granted relief from removal regarding the procedures for obtaining status

documentation shall be maintained on the USCIS website. The Notice shall instruct aliens to make an

appointment with their local USCIS office and to bring a copy of their EOIR order and identity

documentation. DHS shall create hyperlinks to the USCIS website notice, as appropriate, from other

websites maintained by DHS. DOJ shall also provide hyperlinks to this notice from appropriate websites. 

2. USCIS shall mail a letter to potential pre-April 1 EOIR-grantees who received orders between

October 1, 2000, and March 31, 2005, and for whom USCIS systems do not show issuance of permanent

I-551 cards. The letter will contain general procedures for obtaining documentation if an alien has received

a final order of relief from EOIR that evidences a grant of lawful permanent residence.

B. Alien Makes and Attends USCIS Appointments for Documentation Processing and 

Biometrics Collection; USCIS Completes Processing, Including Remaining Background 

Checks; Permanent Resident Card Mailed to Alien 

1. An alien will make and attend an InfoPass appointment at his local USCIS office. If the alien or his

representative is unable to access or obtain assistance to access a computer, or if the alien resides in a

district where InfoPass indicates that appointments are not currently available, the alien may go to a local

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 8 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

USCIS office for assistance and USCIS shall schedule an InfoPass appointment for the alien within two

weeks of the alien’s visit to the USCIS office.

2. At the appointment, USCIS will verify the identity of the alien and will verify that the alien has a final

EOIR order of relief resulting in a grant of lawful permanent residence. Where possible, USCIS shall

obtain all necessary information from files and systems prior to the arrival of the alien at the InfoPass

appointment.

3. USCIS shall schedule the alien for ASC biometrics capture within 45 days of the alien’s initial

InfoPass appointment. The alien shall not be required to pay the ASC biometrics collection fee a second

time if the alien can demonstrate prior payment of a biometrics collection fee. 

4. A Permanent Resident Card (I-551) shall be mailed to the alien from the ICPS facility within 15

days of capture of the alien’s biometrics at an ASC, or 60 days from the alien’s USCIS InfoPass

appointment, whichever date is later.

5. If DHS fails to produce and mail a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) to an alien within the time

period prescribed in paragraph 4 of this Section, the alien may appear without an appointment at his or her

local USCIS office and the USCIS shall issue temporary documentation of legal status sufficient to secure

the rights of legal permanent residency, such as a temporary I-551 stamp in a valid passport or an

Employment Authorization Document. Any such temporary documentation shall be valid for at least six

months. DHS shall issue a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) to the alien within six months of issuing the

temporary documentation.

C. Extensions and Tolling of Time Periods in Certain Cases

1. The time periods above shall be tolled by any number of days that a class member fails to comply

with DHS instructions that are issued consistent with this Plan. 

III. DOCUMENTATION FOR CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE ALREADY ATTENDED 

USCIS APPOINTMENTS FOR DOCUMENTATION AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

INJUNCTION

If a class member (in either the pre- or post-April 1 subclasses) attended his initial appointment at

USCIS for documentation processing on or before the effective date of this Plan, the applicable time

periods described in the Plan shall be counted from either 15 days prior to the effective date of the Plan or

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 9 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

the date of the initial USCIS appointment, whichever date is later. In all such cases where USCIS requires

the alien to provide biometrics for card production, USCIS has 15 days from the effective date of this Plan

or the date of the alien’s ASC appointment, whichever date is later, to produce and mail a permanent

I-551.

IV. RECORDS AND QUARTERLY REPORTS REGARDING COMPLIANCE

1. If a class member has not received LPR status documentation within the time limits prescribed in

Sections I and II of this proposal, the alien may notify a national point of contact (“POC”) at the USCIS

Office of Field Operations at a dedicated e-mail address. In the e-mail inquiry, the alien or his or her

representative will provide the alien’s name, A-number, date of birth, address, date of EOIR order, type of

relief granted, whether the order is final (if the alien or his representative knows), the dates of the InfoPass

and ASC appointments (if applicable), the USCIS district or suboffice involved, and any other relevant

information about his or her request for documentation. If a class member cannot send an e-mail to the

POC, USCIS call responders at the National Customer Service Center shall also collect information from a

class member who calls the 1-800 number with an inquiry about the delayed documentation.

2. USCIS shall keep records of class members who identify themselves, pursuant to paragraph 1 of

this Section, as individuals who have not received documentation within the time limits set forth herein.

3. For three years from the effective date of this plan, DHS shall provide quarterly reports to class

counsel listing the class members (by name and A-number) who have contacted the POC during the

reporting period and who have been denied documentation of status despite the expiration of the relevant

time periods stated herein. The report shall identify, for each individual, any reason defendants assert for

their failure to issue documentation, and shall indicate whether the individual has received status

documentation since contacting the POC. The reports shall be filed on March 30, June 30, September 30,

and December 30 of each year, commencing with March 30, 2006.

4. In no way will failing to contact the POC affect the class members’ right to documentation, nor will

it extend the time limits set forth in Sections I and II. 

V. REMEDY FOR VIOLATION

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 10 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

The remedy for a violation of this injunction will be determined in contempt proceedings brought

before this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Judge

Northern District of California

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

December 22, 2005

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 11 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 12

1. The post-9/11 government syndrome of citing “security” as a justification proves too much. It cannot be

summoned up for every action or inaction lest it be sapped of its vitality.

 ENDNOTES

Case 3:04-cv-02686-MHP Document 154 Filed 12/22/05 Page 12 of 12