GIBBS • HOUSTON • PAUW • 1000 Second Avenue • Suite 1600 • Seattle, WA 98104 • Phone (206) 682-1080 • 

At Gibbs Houston Pauw we have extensive experience in class action suits. We currently have several on-going class action cases focusing on a variety of immigration issues.

For more information on our past class action suits see below. We are happy to answer all of your questions regarding class action immigration claims.

Please visit our contact page by clicking here.

Li, et al. v. United States:

    This is a class action lawsuit challenging the procedures used by the State Department and USCIS for establishing cut-off dates for individuals from China in the third preference employment-based  category (China EB3 category).  

• You do not need to apply to the court in order to benefit from this litigation.  If the court grants relief, it will define who benefits and what what benefits are to be granted.
• Initially, we have proposed that people who meet the following definition be granted relief:   

                    All individuals (including the derivative beneficiaries of such individuals)

       (1)   For whose benefit an Application for Labor Certification has been or will be     

                approved;

       (2)   For whose benefit a Petition for Alien Worker (From I-140) under

               INA §203(b)(3), 8 U.S.C.  §1153(b)(3) has been or will be approved;

       (3)  Who are chargeable under INA §202(b), 8 U.S.C. §1152(b) to mainland China;

                and

       (4)  Who have not yet been approved for permanent resident status.

• The lawsuit asserts that  the cut-off dates established in the Visa Bulletin for the EB3 category in FY 2008 and FY 2009 violate INA §203(e), 8 U.S.C. §1153(e), which requires that visas must be allocated in priority date order.  The complaint also asserts that there is no adequate system to properly account for the number of immigrant petitions and AOS applications that are pending.  As a result, class members are unlawfully delayed in obtaining their permanent resident status and immigrant visas are issued in violation of §203(e).  Some derivative beneficiaries have aged out of eligibility as a result of this improper delay.

• The Complaint includes a full description of the claims alleged and the relief that the plaintiffs are seeking

• We are interested in keeping track of class members and their situations.  We request that class members complete the attached Intake Form and send it to us either by email: info@ghp-law.net or by fax:  206-689-2270.  There is no obligation by doing so, and we will keep your information confidential.  Your information will help us better respond to government arguments and will let us keep you informed about important developments 

Ruiz-Diaz v. USA:

This is a class action lawsuit filed for the benefit of religious workers who are seeking to adjust status to permanent residence. 

• This case is pending before the district court.  The Order Granting Summary Judgment issued by the district court on March 23, 2009 was reversed in a Decision issued by the Ninth Circuit on August 20, 2010.

• IMPORTANT notice on filing deadline:  Pursuant to the latest Ninth Circuit ruling, the USCIS has issued the following Notice, setting the deadline for concurrent filing of I-360 and I-485 as November 8, 2010.  For details, please refer to the Notice.

• The Intake Form, once completed and sent in to our firm, allow us to stay in touch with you about developments in the case.

• The following documents were effective prior to the Ninth Circuit’s August 20, 2010 Decision.  They are attached for informational purposes.

• Order Granting Summary Judgment
• Remedial Order
• Notice to Class Members
• Neufeld Memo on Implementation
• Preliminary Injunction

Proyecto San Pablo v. INS:

     Legalization or amnesty applicants who applied in 1987-88 but were denied because of a prior deportation.

• The April 2009 GHP memo to class members describes who may be eligible as a class member, gives an overview of the case, and will help you identify the steps needed to apply.
• Using the FOIA Request Form, you can request a copy of your immigration file from EOIR and from the Department of Homeland Security; use this form to request a complete copy of your prior deportation file, including a tape or transcript of the prior deportation hearing.
• In the Ninth Circuit’s December 5, 2008 Decision, the Court upheld the district court’s order requiring USCIS to reopen and reconsider previously denied waiver applications; USC must consider each waiver application on its merits, in the same manner as it adjudicates waiver applications filed by other legalization applicants.
• The District Court’s March 4, 2008 Order reaffirms the Order of June 4, 2007, and sets forth the procedure for reopening applications.
• The District Court’s June 4, 2007 Order requires USCIS to reopen legalization applications filed by class members that have been denied.  USCIS must provide applicants with a complete copy of the alleged prior deportation hearing (including a tape or transcript of the hearing) and an opportunity to prove that the prior deportation hearing occurred in violation of due process.  In addition, USCIS must afford applicants an opportunity to file a waiver, and must adjudicate these waivers under the same standard that is applied to all other legalization applicants.  

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) v. USCIS:

     (formerly known as Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS). Legalization or amnesty applicants who applied (or tried to apply and were rejected at the front desk) in 1987-88 but who were denied/rejected on known to the government grounds, in other words "that your violation of status prior to 1982 was not known to the government,"

• To determine whether you might be eligible for benefits under this case, our Intake Form will take you through the three main requirements.  After you have completed the form, and if you decide that you may be eligible, send us a copy so that we can contact you with future developments in the case.
• Our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) memo helps answer many questions you may have about eligibility and the process.
• The Form G-639 is the form to send to USCIS to request a copy of your prior amnesty applications, if any.  This will be important to have to make sure that what you submit to USCIS is accurate.  The process at USCIS to respond to these requests is very slow, so if you do not have a copy of your file, you should apply now for it.  You will probably have to file without the file, because of the filing deadline of January 30, 2010 (for those who did not previously file for amnesty).
• The I-687 Worksheet is the court-approved form that you will need to send to USCIS to qualify you for benefits. There is no filing fee for this form.  Please note: If you timely applied in 1987-88, you do not need to complete anything on this form but the first page, and signature at the end, but be sure to explain to CIS that you timely applied in 87-88 and your application is still pending, or was denied. 
  
• The Form I-687 is the amnesty form to submit if you have not previously applied.  The CIS Instructions are available by clicking here.  The filing fee, if you have to file this form, is $710 plus $80 for biometrics.
• The Form I-290B is the form to submit (with filing fee) if your I-687 filed in 87-88 was denied, or if your CSS/Newman/LIFE Act application was denied on “known to the government” grounds.  The instructions are available by clicking here.  The filing fee is $585.
• The Form I-765 is the form to file to seek work authorization together with the appropriate other applications.   The instructions are available by clicking here. At #16 on the form, the eligibility category you should write in is (c)(22). The filing fee is $340.
• The Settlement documents as approved by the court are here.  They would be helpful to an attorney who needs to thoroughly understand the terms of the settlement, especially the provisions about how CIS is to decide whether you have done a sufficient job in explaining why your violation of status prior to January 1, 1982 was “known to the government.”  See pages 15-16 in the Settlement.
• The form to file an Appeal to the Special Master is what you need to submit if your I-687 or I-290B is rejected on the basis that you have failed to establish that you are within the definition of the class.  The basic definition of the class is someone who 1) entered the United States in a non-immigrant status before 1/1/82, and 2) timely applied in 1987-88, or tried to apply in those years, and 3) violated your status prior to 1/1/82 in a manner known to the government, most commonly by not filing a quarterly address report in 1981.  See, Settlement at pp. 5-7 for details.  The filing fee for this appeal is $125.  The appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of the CIS decision finding that you have not established that you are a class member.

Questions Questions about Class Action Cases?

We are happy to meet with you either over the phone or in person to discuss your immigration questions and concerns.

Contact us to schedule a consultation with one of our Seattle Immigration Attorneys.

To contact us click here

 Noteworthy Class Action Cases:

Lee v. Gonzales, No. C04-449 RSL (W.D. Wash, Feb. 16, 2006): Statewide class action requiring reopening of naturalization denials where based on lack of good moral character;

Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000): en banc, national class action setting aside INS regulation on administrative denaturalization;

Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 032 (9th Cir. 1998): national class action setting aside INS regulation on document fraud procedures;

Gete v. INS, 121 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 1997): class action setting aside INS vehicle seizure procedures;

Reno v. Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. 43 (1993): national class action lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals whom INS deemed to be ineligible for legalization;

Lopez v. INS, No. 78-1912-WMB (C.D. Calif., Aug. 20, 1992): class action requiring INS to stop questioning aliens upon request to speak to counsel;

UFW v. INS, Civ S 87-1064 JFM (E.D. Calif., Sept. 18. 1990): class action setting aside INS procedures for adjudicating seasonal agricultural worker applications.