Find attorneys familiar with the CSS & Newman/LULAC cases
CSS Lawsuit Background
CSS challenged an INS regulation declaring that persons who had
traveled outside the U.S. during the original 12-month application
period (May 1987 – May 1988) were ineligible to apply for legalization
unless they had re-entered with advance parole.
The INS initially defended its advance parole rule as a reasonable interpretation of the IRCA’s "continuous physical presence" eligibility criterion, but the district court entered summary judgment striking the rule down shortly before the end of the 12-month application period. The district court held the advance parole rule inconsistent with INA § 245(a)(3)(B), which specifically permitted applicants "brief, innocent, and casual" absences abroad.
One month after the application period closed, the INS conceded that its advance parole regulation was improper, declined to appeal the merits of the summary judgment, and agreed to discontinue applying the rule to pending legalization applications. By then, however, the agency had turned away or discouraged thousands of would-be applicants, telling them they were ineligible to apply for legalization because they had briefly traveled in violation of the advance parole rule.
Under the CSS interim relief order, the INS was required to grant temporary work authorization and stays of deportation to class members who were prima facie eligible for legalization. Persons were permitted to apply for interim relief until December 2, 1995.
In 1998, the Ninth Circuit ruled that pursuant to § 377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), the court did not have jurisdiction to address the claims of CSS class members unless the applicant "attempted to file a complete application and application fee" with a legalization officer and the applicant and fee were refused ("Group 1" applicants). The CSS case was subsequently dismissed and INS stopped issuing work permits and began detaining and removing CSS class members. In response, a new case, Catholic Social Services v. Reno, Cv. No. S-98-629-LLK (CSS II) was brought by the Center.
In June of 1998, Chief Judge Emeritus Lawrence K. Karlton, in the federal district court in Sacramento, California, issued temporary restraining orders barring the INS from revoking employment authorization previously granted to class members and enjoined INS from detaining or removing any CSS I class members.
In November of 2000, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the panel opinion directing that CSS be dismissed. The court of appeals held that the CSS case could go forward and that certain CSS class members (those who did not have a completed application or fee when they attempted to apply) could challenge that statute as denying them equal protection of the laws.
On August 27, 2001, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California reinstated the action in light of the retroactive repeal of § 377 of IIRAIRA. On February 15, 2002, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint to seek relief on behalf of class members who were not benefited by the retroactive repeal of § 377 on the grounds that the selective repeal of that statute denies affected class members access to the courts in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
In June 2002, the Center presented a motion for summary judgment to the federal district court, asking that the court enter judgment requiring the INS to accept and decide legalization applications from CSS class members under the original 1986 amnesty law.
The result of the latest motion is the present settlement agreement. Click here for a summary of a settlement filed in this case and approved by the Court.
The INS initially defended its advance parole rule as a reasonable interpretation of the IRCA’s "continuous physical presence" eligibility criterion, but the district court entered summary judgment striking the rule down shortly before the end of the 12-month application period. The district court held the advance parole rule inconsistent with INA § 245(a)(3)(B), which specifically permitted applicants "brief, innocent, and casual" absences abroad.
One month after the application period closed, the INS conceded that its advance parole regulation was improper, declined to appeal the merits of the summary judgment, and agreed to discontinue applying the rule to pending legalization applications. By then, however, the agency had turned away or discouraged thousands of would-be applicants, telling them they were ineligible to apply for legalization because they had briefly traveled in violation of the advance parole rule.
Under the CSS interim relief order, the INS was required to grant temporary work authorization and stays of deportation to class members who were prima facie eligible for legalization. Persons were permitted to apply for interim relief until December 2, 1995.
In 1998, the Ninth Circuit ruled that pursuant to § 377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), the court did not have jurisdiction to address the claims of CSS class members unless the applicant "attempted to file a complete application and application fee" with a legalization officer and the applicant and fee were refused ("Group 1" applicants). The CSS case was subsequently dismissed and INS stopped issuing work permits and began detaining and removing CSS class members. In response, a new case, Catholic Social Services v. Reno, Cv. No. S-98-629-LLK (CSS II) was brought by the Center.
In June of 1998, Chief Judge Emeritus Lawrence K. Karlton, in the federal district court in Sacramento, California, issued temporary restraining orders barring the INS from revoking employment authorization previously granted to class members and enjoined INS from detaining or removing any CSS I class members.
In November of 2000, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the panel opinion directing that CSS be dismissed. The court of appeals held that the CSS case could go forward and that certain CSS class members (those who did not have a completed application or fee when they attempted to apply) could challenge that statute as denying them equal protection of the laws.
On August 27, 2001, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California reinstated the action in light of the retroactive repeal of § 377 of IIRAIRA. On February 15, 2002, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint to seek relief on behalf of class members who were not benefited by the retroactive repeal of § 377 on the grounds that the selective repeal of that statute denies affected class members access to the courts in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
In June 2002, the Center presented a motion for summary judgment to the federal district court, asking that the court enter judgment requiring the INS to accept and decide legalization applications from CSS class members under the original 1986 amnesty law.
The result of the latest motion is the present settlement agreement. Click here for a summary of a settlement filed in this case and approved by the Court.
