IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES PAZ and

PAUL PETIT, individually §

and on behalf of all persons §

similarly situated, §

§

 Plaintiffs §

§

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-cv-92

§

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his §

official capacity as Secretary §

of the United States §

Department of Homeland § JUDGE: _________________

Security, §

§

 Defendant §

COMPLAINT

COME NOW Maria de los Angeles Paz and Paul Petit, hereinafter 

“Plaintiffs,” by counsel, complaining of Alejandro Mayorkas, 

hereinafter “Defendant,” and for their cause of action would 

show as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an immigration case. Both named plaintiffs, 

and every member of the class they seek to represent, have been

required to pay or will be required to pay the sum of $85.00, 

supposedly for biometrics services, to the United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (hereinafter “USCIS”). 

The USCIS, in the case of each named plaintiff and each class 

member, has determined or will determine that biometrics were or 

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
are not necessary, but nonetheless kept or will keep the $85.00 

fee for same. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all 

persons similarly situated, bring this action to recover their 

unused biometrics fees and to halt the USCIS’s policy of keeping 

those fees when they are not needed. Plaintiffs, proceeding 

individually and on behalf of the class they seek to represent, 

seek declaratory and injunctive relief, their attorney’s fees, 

and their costs. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this case under 5 

U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 2201 and 

2202. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(e).

3. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists 

between Plaintiffs and Defendant.

PARTIES

Named Parties

4. Plaintiff Maria de los Angeles Paz is a 48-year-old 

citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident of the United 

States, residing in Henderson, Rusk County, Texas.

5. Plaintiff Paul Petit, aka Paul Petit Padron, is a 27-

year-old citizen of the United States residing in Pollok,

Angelina County, Texas.

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
6. Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security of the United States. He is 

charged by statute with the administration of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (hereinafter “INA”) and all other laws 

relating to immigration and naturalization, and is responsible 

for the control, direction, and supervision of the USCIS and its 

employees, and is responsible for processing applications for 

permanent residence, for naturalization, and petitions and 

applications for many other benefits under the INA, and 

enforcing the INA and its accompanying regulations. 

Plaintiff Class

7. In this action Plaintiffs seek certification, pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), as the representatives of a class 

consisting of all persons who have paid or will pay a biometrics 

fee of $85.00 to United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, and did not have or will not have those biometrics 

fees returned to them after USCIS determines they are not 

needed.

8. This proposed plaintiff class meets all of the 

requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure:

A. By regulation, the USCIS charges an $85.00 

biometrics fee to every person who submits the 

following applications or petitions: I-90 

Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card; 

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
I-129CW Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant 

Transitional Worker; I-131 Application for Travel 

Document; I-485 Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status; I-539 Application to 

Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status; I-600 Petition 

to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative; I600A Petition to Classify Advance Processing of 

an Orphan Petition; I-601A Application for 

Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver; I-751 

Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence; I-765 

Application for Employment Authorization; I-800A 

Application for Determination of Suitability to 

Adopt a Child from a Convention Country; I-817 

Application for Family Unity Benefits; I-821 

Application for Temporary Protected Status; I821D Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals; I-829 Petition by Investor to 

Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status; 

I-881 Application for Suspension of Deportation 

or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant 

to Section 203 of Public Law 105-100 (NACARA)); 

I-941 Application for Entrepreneur Parole; I-956H 

Bona Fides of Persons Involved with Regional 

Center Program; and N-400 Application for 

Naturalization. Over 500,000 people per year 

therefore pay the biometrics fee, and over 

100,000.00 people per year are subsequently 

advised by the USCIS that the fee was not 

necessary, but will not be returned. This class 

is therefore so numerous that joinder of all 

members is not practicable.

B. There are questions of law and of fact common to 

the class, and the claims of the representative 

plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the 

class, because the representative plaintiffs and 

all members of the class have paid or will have 

to pay an $85.00 biometrics fee that, although 

unnecessary, is not refunded.

C. The representative plaintiffs will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class 

because they have been treated the same as the 

members of their class, have no conflict with the 

members of their class, and are represented by 

competent and experienced counsel.

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
D. The defendant has acted or refused to act on 

grounds generally applicable to the class, 

thereby making appropriate final injunctive or 

corresponding declaratory relief with respect to 

the class as a whole, in that Defendant continues 

to require an unnecessary but not-returned 

biometrics fee of $85.00 of Plaintiffs and the 

members of the class, even though the defendant 

has absolutely no basis for retaining that fee. 

FACTS

Individual Plaintiffs’ Facts

9. Plaintiff Maria de los Angeles Paz was lawfully 

admitted to the United States for permanent residence on 

November 2, 2021. Exhibit 1.

10. In connection with her Application for Permanent 

Residence (Form I-485), and pursuant to the USCIS’s regulations, 

plaintiff Paz was required to and did submit a biometrics fee in 

the amount of $85.00, supposedly for the purpose of taking her 

fingerprints and photograph for said application. 

11. The $85.00 biometric fee Plaintiff Paz paid was not 

necessary, because the USCIS already had her biometrics from a 

previous application. 

12. USCIS advised Plaintiff Paz that the biometrics fee 

was unnecessary, but that it would not be refunded in any event. 

Exhibit 2.

13. Plaintiff Paul Petit successfully applied to become a 

naturalized citizen of the United States, submitting his

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) to the USCIS on or 

about October 19, 2022. Exhibit 3. In connection with that 

application he was required by USCIS regulations to pay a 

biometrics fee in the amount of $85.00, which he did. That 

$85.00 biometrics fee was not necessary, because the USCIS 

already had Mr. Petit’s biometrics from a previous application.

14. Nonetheless, the USCIS informed Plaintiff Petit that 

it would not refund his biometric fees even though it was not 

needed. Exhibit 4.

15. USCIS knows perfectly well how to return an 

unnecessary fee, Exhibit 5, but has chosen not to do so with 

regard to Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class.

16. USCIS knows perfectly well how to advise an applicant 

for immigration benefits that in the future it will charge a 

biometrics fee if necessary, Exhibit 6, but has chosen not to do 

with regard to Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class.

17. USCIS knows perfectly well how to remove the 

biometrics requirement for a specific class of 

applicants/petitioners from whom biometrics are not needed, and 

to return those fees improperly charged. Exhibit 7. However, 

the USCIS has chosen not to do so with regard to Plaintiffs and 

the members of the proposed class.

18. The actions of Defendant have caused and continue to 

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
cause injury and damage to Plaintiffs and the members of the 

class they seek to represent for the reasons set forth in the 

preceding paragraphs. 

19. The actions of Defendant described above constitute 

final agency action, within the meaning of the Administrative 

Procedures Act, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

20. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative 

remedies. 

Class Members’ Facts

21. The facts set forth above in paragraphs 9 through 20

above are equally applicable to the members of the class the 

named plaintiffs seek to represent, in that Defendant has or 

will require an $85.00 biometrics fee from each of them and has 

refused or will refuse to return that fee even when it turns out 

that biometrics were or are not necessary. 

22. The members of the class that Plaintiffs seek to 

represent have no administrative remedies available to them to 

challenge the actions and omissions of defendant Mayorkas set 

forth above, and have no adequate remedy at law.

23. The actions of Defendant described above have no 

reasonable basis in fact or law and are not substantially 

justified.

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
24. Plaintiffs are individuals whose net worth does not 

exceed the sum of $2,000,000.00 at the time of filing of this 

lawsuit. 

25. No special circumstances exist in this case such as to 

make an award of attorney's fees against Defendant unjust.

CAUSE OF ACTION

26. Defendant’s unjust retention of biometrics fees paid 

by Plaintiffs and the members of the class they seek to 

represent, all of which is more fully set out above, has 

adversely affected Plaintiffs and the class they seek to 

represent and represents agency action subject to review under 5 

U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court:

A. Certify Plaintiffs’ proposed class;

B. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring Defendant’s 

practice of unjustly retaining biometrics fees to be arbitrary, 

capricious, not in accordance with law, and violative of the 

rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the class;

C. Order Defendant to return to Plaintiffs and the class 

members the biometrics fees improperly retained, plus interest;

D. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions on behalf 

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
of Plaintiffs and the members of the class against Defendant, 

enjoining the continuance of the acts, omissions and policies 

complained of above; and

E. Grant Plaintiffs a reasonable attorney's fee, to 

consist of a portion of the biometrics fees returned by 

Defendant not to exceed one third (33.3%) of the biometrics fees 

so returned, and their costs and expenses herein.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Richard S. Fischer

RICHARD S. FISCHER

State Bar No. 07043100

FISCHER AND FISCHER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

114 South Pecan Street

Nacogdoches, Texas 75961

Phone: (936)564-2222

FAX: (936)564-1346

E-mail: fischerlaw@sbcglobal.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 9:23-cv-00092-MJT Document 1 Filed 05/17/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9