Opinion ID: 752068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IIRIRA's Limit on Legalization Litigation.

Text: 20 Against this backdrop, Congress enacted IIRIRA, including § 377(a), by which § 245A(f)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended by adding the following paragraph: 21 (C) JURISDICTION OF COURTS: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction of any cause of action or claim by or on behalf of any person asserting an interest under this section unless such person in fact filed an application under this section within the period specified by subsection (a)(1) of this section, or attempted to file a complete application and application fee with an authorized legalization officer of the Service but had the application and fee refused by that officer. 22 IIRIRA § 377(a), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f)(4)(C) (West Supp.1997) (emphasis added). Section 377(b) further provided that [t]he amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective as if included in the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. IIRIRA, 110 Stat. at 3009-649. The Conference Report explains that § 377 was intended to put an end to litigation seeking to extend the amnesty provisions of IRCA, and to limit claims under that section to aliens who in fact filed an application for legalization ... within the prescribed time limits, or attempted to do so but their application was refused by an immigration officer. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 230 (1996), reproduced at 1996 WL 563320. 23