Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10238&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:13:52+00:00

Document:
On June 9, 1986, immigrant visa applicants brought a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, requesting declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief requiring the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to change its method of considering petitions for voluntary departure and employment authorization for undocumented aliens who had initial immigration petitions filed on their behalf by their U.S. citizen spouses. Plaintiffs alleged that the INS' failure to act on their applications for voluntary departure and employment authorization violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. and the Fifth Amendment.
On January 6, 1988, the District Court (Judge Edward C. Prado) certified the case as a class action, with the class consisting of: "All immigrant visa applicants who reside within the San Antonio, Texas INS District and are immediate relatives of United States citizens or within sixty days of visa availability and who have applied or will apply for employment authorization and (1) whose applications for employment authorization have been or will be denied, or (2) whose applications for employment authorization have not been timely adjudicated."
After a two day trial in July 1988, the District Court (Judge Prado) issued a lengthy ruling and permanent injunction in an order dated November 14, 1988. The injunction contained four parts: "(1) All requests for voluntary departure shall be adjudicated within 60 days, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d), and applications for voluntary departure and employment authorization shall be considered jointly; (2) all denials of voluntary departure shall be made in writing, in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(c);(3) defendants shall be prohibited from denying requests for employment authorization and voluntary departure on certain enumerated grounds; and (4) the INS shall be prohibited from initiating deportation proceedings against class members in retaliation for their requests for relief."
The INS appealed parts 3 and 4 of the injunction. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the challenged portions of the injunction. Perales v. Casillas, 903 F.2d 1043, 1053 (5th Cir.1990). Rehearing was denied by Perales v. Casillas, 912 F.2d 1465 (5th Cir.1990).
While the appeal was pending, the District Court awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Defendants appealed the fee award. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the fee award for reconsideration in light of the appellate opinion on the merits. Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1992).
We have no further information on the case.

References: § 551
 § 274
 § 274
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2412
 v.