*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40934

Summary Calendar

ANTELMA DOMINGUEZ-PEREZ; MARIA GUADALUPE SALINASGRIMALDO; PATRICIA BOONE-GOMEZ; ARMANDO BOONE-GOMEZ,

Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Petitioners–Appellants,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY; EDUARDO AGUIRRE, Acting Director of the Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration Services; ALFONSO DE LEON, Interim

District Director of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Harlingen, Texas; MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Respondents–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-116

Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 1994, Plaintiff Antelma Dominguez-Perez filed her Application for

Certificate of Citizenship (N-600). Dominguez-Perez’s husband, Jose Luis, filed

an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (I-485) and,

pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(9), also filed an Application for Employment

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 7, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40934

2

Authorization (I-765) resulting in the issuance of an employment authorization

document (EAD). However, unlike for I-485 applicants, the then-existing

regulations precluded issuance of EADs to N-600 applicants such as DominguezPerez. In July 1996, Dominguez-Perez and several other N-600 applicants

seeking EADs (Petitioners) filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming, inter

alia, Equal Protection violations. 

The magistrate judge recommended certification of a class consisting of

“all people who have filed or will file an N-600 application with the INS District

Office in Harlingen, Texas, in whose cases there has been no final adjudication

of their claim to United Sates [sic] citizenship.” The magistrate judge further

recommended granting the requested declaratory and injunctive relief—allowing

the class to obtain EADs while their N-600s were pending. The district court

adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations in its written order. 

The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement and the

district courtissued its “Amended Final Order,” requiring, in relevant part,that

“applications for EADs based on pending applications for Certificates of

Citizenship be adjudicated in the same manner and in the same time frame as

applications for EADs filed by aliens who have applied for adjustment of status

under Section 245 of the Act.” 

Subsequent to the injunction, the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services (CIS) instituted a “90-Day Program”for adjudication of all

I-485 and N-600 applications. Key to this program is the use of a “stop-time”

rule. The stop-time rule tolls the running of any time limit relating to I-485 and

N-600 applications as well as derivative applications (such as I-765 applications

for EADs) when a Request for Further Evidence form is issued. Believing this

new program violated the court’s injunction, Petitioners filed a motion seeking

to enforce the Amended Final Order and to hold the CIS District Director of the
No. 07-40934

1Gunn v. Univ. Comm. to End the War in Viet Nam, 399 U.S. 383, 388 (1970); see also

United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947) (“Judicial sanctions

in civil contempt proceedings may, in a proper case, be employed for either or both of two

purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court’s order, and to compensate

the complainant for losses sustained.”). 

2Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990). 

3

Id. at 395-96. 

4See John Doe #1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 819 (5th Cir. 2004) (noting that enjoining

conduct not challengedinthe complaint would constitute “animpermissible advisory opinion”).

3

Harlingen District in contempt. Petitioners also sought a declaration that the

applicable regulations did not authorize tolling with regard to I-765 applications

for EADs. 

Finding compliance with the previous injunctive order, the district court

held that CIS could apply the tolling rule to N-600 applicants as long as it

applied the same rule to I-485 applicants. However, the district court declined

to address whether the regulations authorize tolling with regard to I-765

applications for EADs on the grounds that no actual case or controversy existed.

Petitioners appeal only the district court’s refusal to address whether the

regulations authorize tolling with regard to I-765 applications for EADs. 

The proper method to enforce an injunction is through the “power of

contempt.”1 Like the imposition of costs, attorney’s fees, and Rule 11 sanctions,

the imposition of a contempt sanction is not a judgment on the merits of an

action.2“Rather, it requires the determination of a collateral issue” and thus

may be considered after an action is no longer pending.3

Petitioners appeal the district court’s refusal to decide an issue not raised

in their complaint or included in the Amended Final Order. Deciding such a

question would result in an improper advisory opinion.4

AFFIRMED.