Impact Litigation | NWIRP.org

Current Caseload

Fayez Mansor, et al., v. USCIS, et al., 2:23-cv-347 (W.D. Wash.)

Class action complaint against USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security challenging the government's failure to comply with the statute and provide immediate employment authorization to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants while their applications for TPS are pending. The complaint was filed March 9, 2023, by NWIRP and co-counsel at National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) and the law firm of Kurzban, Kurzban, Tetzeli & Pratt, and seeks declaratory relief for all TPS applicants nationwide. Federal law requires that eligible TPS applicants be provided employment authorization documentation so they can obtain work to support themselves and their families while they wait for the agency to complete the lengthy adjudication process, which can take several months and, in some cases, even years. The lawsuit alleges that despite the statutory guarantee of such interim work authorization, USCIS waits to provide employment authorization documentation until after the TPS applications are approved.

On August 2, 2023, the Court denied the government's motion to dismiss the case, and on August 25, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court has since issued a scheduling order requiring the government to produce the administrative record and for the parties to address whether extra-record discovery is necessary, which the parties submitted on December 22, 2023.

Complaint
Motion to Certify Class
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Order denying motion to dismiss
Order certifying class
Joint Status Report regarding extra-record discovery

Linda Cabello Garcia v. USCIS, et al., 3:22-cv-5984 (W.D. Wash.)

Class action complaint against USCIS for the agency’s wrongful denials of U visa recipients’ adjustment of status applications based on lack of submission of a medical exam, even though U visa recipients seeking to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident (LPR) are not subject to public health inadmissibility grounds. Ms. Cabello Garcia and putative class members stand to have their applications for permanent residence denied for lack of a medical exam, even though the Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose this requirement on this group.

The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss, and Ms. Cabello has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The parties have completed briefing of the appeal.

Complaint
Motion to Certify Class
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss
Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Ninth Circuit Opening Brief
Government's Ninth Circuit response brief
Plaintiff's Ninth Circuit reply brief

Felix Rubio Hernandez v. USCIS, et al., 2:22-cv-904 (W.D. Wash.)

Lawsuit against USCIS seeking relief under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) for the agency’s wrongful denial of a U visa recipient’s adjustment of status application. The agency denied Mr. Rubio Hernandez’s application on the basis that he failed to provide sufficient evidence pertaining to his criminal history, in spite of the fact that the agency placed undue weight on arrests which resulted in dismissal or for which Mr. Rubio Hernandez was found not guilty, and in spite of the fact that the agency committed legal error for requiring police records no longer in existence. Even though he presented substantial evidence of positive equities, the agency arbitrarily and capriciously denied Mr. Rubio Hernandez’s application, and the Administrative Appeals Office denied his appeal.

On November 30, 2022, the district court denied the government's motion to dismiss the case, which the government had asserted was required by the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland. On November 7, 2023, the district court granted Mr. Rubio Hernandez's motion for a summary judgment, holding the Administrative Appeals Office had unlawfully relied on multiple police reports in the record to deny his application. The Court ordered the case to be remanded to the agency for reconsideration of Mr. Rubio Hernandez's application based only on lawful factors. On January 5, 2024, the government filed a notice of appeal in the case.

Complaint
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss
Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

Garcia Perez, et al., v. USCIS, et al., 2:22-cv-806 (W.D. Wash.)

Class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, filed in collaboration with co-counsel from National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), seeking adequate notice of asylum Employment Authorization Document (EAD) clock determinations and the opportunity to remedy those determinations. Plaintiffs are asylum and withholding of removal applicants who are challenging defendants' policies and practices that unlawfully deny them work authorization while their asylum and withholding claims are pending adjudication by defendants beyond the six-month time period prescribed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Due to defendants' unlawful policies and practices preventing them from qualifying for employment authorization, plaintiffs and proposed class members are in dire financial straits while they await final decisions on their applications. The case is currently stayed while the parties explore the possibility of settlement.

Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Alfred v. Garland, No. 19-72903 (9th Cir.)

Petition for review challenging whether McKenzy Alfred's second-degree Washington robbery conviction constitutes a theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) because Washington accomplice liability allows convictions based on a lower mens rea than is required for accomplice liability under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), rendering the Washington conviction overbroad. The Ninth Circuit initially granted the petition for review in a published opinion on September 22, 2021. The government petitioned for rehearing en banc, which the Court of Appeals granted. The parties submitted supplemental briefing, and the court heard argument in the en banc proceedings on September 8, 2022. On March 30, 2023, the en banc court issued an opinion reversing the panel decision and concluding that Washington second-degree robbery is a theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).

Opinion
Petition for Rehearing En Banc
Petitioner's Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc
Order to Rehear Case En Banc
Petitioner's Supplemental Opening Brief
Government's Supplemental Answering Brief
Petitioner's Supplemental Reply Brief
Amicus Brief of Federal Defenders
En banc court opinion

Wilfredo Favela Avendaño, et al., v. Nathalie Asher, et al., 2:20-cv-700 (W.D. Wash.)

(Also referred to as Castañeda Juarez v. Asher; related to Karlena Dawson, et al., v. Nathalie Asher, et al., 2:20-cv-409.) Petition for writ of habeas corpus and class action complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of certain medically vulnerable individuals in the Northwest ICE Processing Center (also called the Northwest Detention Center or NWDC). The suit originally sought the release of people who are in civil detention and are at high risk for serious illness or death in the event of COVID-19 infection. When COVID-19 vaccines became available, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment regarding the provision of vaccines for detained individuals, and the government provided detainees with the opportunity to receive vaccinations prior to a ruling on that motion.

On August 23, 2021, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin defendants from admitting detainees to the NWDC whose transfer was not in accordance with CDC guidelines. The court ordered ICE to test detainees for COVID-19 prior to their transfer to the NWDC and to take all reasonable measures to ensure no cross-exposure between COVID-positive and COVID-negative detainees during transport.

The parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions.

E.L.A. and O.L.C., v. United States of America, 2:20-cv-1524 (W.D. Wash.)

Suit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on behalf of an asylum-seeking father and son forcibly separated at the U.S. border in June 2018. The family endured nine months of separation, during which time the government prolonged their separation by unlawfully refusing to process E.L.A.’s request for asylum. After one month of separation, the U.S. government officials told E.L.A. he would be reunited with his son, but instead of taking him to O.L.C., deported him from a Texas holding facility to Guatemala, without his child. O.L.C. was held in a children’s home thousands of miles away, in New York, and suffered numerous harms in a hostile and abusive environment. Plaintiffs brought this action under the FTCA seeking compensation for the harm they suffered at the hands of the federal government. In January 2021, the government moved to transfer the venue of this suit from the Western District of Washington, where plaintiffs reside, to the Southern District of Texas, where their separation occurred. On June 3, 2022, the court denied the government’s motion to transfer venue and granted their motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ abuse of process and negligence claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissed claims, which was denied by the court on October 19, 2022. The government subsequently filed another partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on November 14, 2022. The district court denied the government's second motion to dismiss on May 15, 2023.

Complaint
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Transfer Venue
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
Order Denying Motion to Transfer Venue and Granting Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Response to Partial Motion to Dismiss
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Surreply in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Order denying second Motion to Dismiss

Nightingale, et al., v. USCIS, et al., 19-cv-03512-WHO (N.D. Cal.)

Class action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) challenging the systematic delay by USCIS and ICE to respond to requests for immigration files (often referred to as A-Files). Those files are needed by immigrants to defend themselves in removal proceedings and to move forward with their applications for immigration benefits. The FOIA statute requires the government to respond within 20 days and yet requestors are systematically forced to wait for several months before the government responds.

On October 15, 2019, the district court certified two nationwide classes challenging both USCIS's and ICE’s failure to timely submit responses to FOIA requests for A-files. On December 17, 2020, the court ruled on summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor, granting injunctive and declaratory relief and ordering defendants to make determinations on all FOIA requests in USCIS's and ICE's backlogs within 60 days. Counsel for plaintiffs have issued a practice advisory for practitioners, available below, and defendants continue to file compliance reports with the court.

Complaint
Motion for Summary Judgment
Order Granting Class Certification
Order Granting Summary Judgment
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
First Compliance Report
Second Compliance Report
Third Compliance Report
Fourth Compliance Report
Fifth Compliance Report
Sixth Compliance Report
Seventh Compliance Report and Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction
Defendants' Reply in Support of Partial Stay of Injunction
Eighth Compliance Report

Nightingale FOIA Practice Advisory - Updated February 2023

Rosario, et al., v. USCIS, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00813-JLR (W.D. Wash.), appeal pending, NWIRP v. USCIS, No. 18-35806 (9th Cir.)

Challenges delays in adjudication of employment authorization documents (EADs) for certain asylum applicants. On July 18, 2017, the court certified a nationwide class of asylum applicants whose pending applications for their initial EADs were not adjudicated within the required 30-day regulatory timeframe and who did not receive interim employment authorization. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the claims of the named plaintiffs whose EAD applications were subject to the 90-day regulatory timeframe, concluding that DHS’s amended EAD regulations, which went into effect on January 17, 2017, rendered those claims moot. The case has moved forward with the 30-day nationwide class.

Following summary judgment briefing by both parties, the court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor on July 26, 2018. The court ordered USCIS to follow the law and timely adjudicate initial EAD asylum applications. While the government initially appealed that decision, it ultimately sought dismissal of the appeal, leaving the court's order in place.

Complaint
Amended Complaint
Amended Motion for Class Certification
Order on Motion to Dismiss and Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Class Certification
Second Order on Motion to Dismiss and Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

Practice Advisory and FAQ - Updated March 2021

Moreno Galvez, et al., 2:19-cv-321 (W.D. Wash.)

Class action on behalf of petitioners for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) challenging USCIS's new and unlawful policy of denying SIJS for youth who obtained the necessary state court orders after they turned 18. The new policy violates the controlling statute by refusing to honor state court SIJS orders issued to youth after they turned 18 but before they turned 21. The Immigration and Nationality Act makes clear that any unmarried youth under 21 years of age is eligible to apply for SIJS if a state court makes findings that the youth is unable to be reunited with one or both parents because they have been abandoned, abused, or neglected, and that it is not in the youth's best interest to return to their country of origin.

After oral arguments in July 2019, Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The government was enjoined from denying SIJS on the grounds that a Washington state court does not have authority to "reunify" a child with their parent, and was also enjoined from initiating removal proceedings against or removing any SIJS petitioner whose petition was denied on those grounds.

The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and request for permanent injunctive relief in October 2020. USCIS appealed the summary judgment decision to the Ninth Circuit, but only challenged whether the court should have issued a permanent injunction requiring compliance with the 180 day adjudication timeline required by the statute. Oral arguments were heard on March 9, 2022, and the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on November 3, 2022, agreeing with plaintiffs that the statutory language is clear, and that the new rule that the government tried to rely on to allow the agency to restart or toll the 180 days does not provide a basis to get around the 180 day timeline.

Following remand, the district court revised its injunction to address the one error the Ninth Circuit identified in the injunction. The final permanent injunction continues to require USCIS to SIJS applications within 180 days.

Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Motion for Summary Judgment
Order Granting Class Certification
Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Ninth Circuit Opening Brief
Ninth Circuit Response Brief
Ninth Circuit Reply Brief
Brief of Amici Curiae
Ninth Circuit Opinion
Amended permanent injunction

Padilla v. ICE, et al., 2:18-cv-928 (W.D. Wash.)

Class-action lawsuit challenging delays in process for asylum seekers. The case seeks to shorten the length of time asylum seekers are detained, since they are currently forced to wait in detention for weeks and in many cases months for credible fear interviews and bond hearings. In March 2019, the court granted nationwide class certification for both the credible fear interview class and the bond hearing class, and in April 2019, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

Complaint filed
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
Second Amended Complaint
Amended Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Order Dismissing APA Claims and Partially Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Order Granting Class Certification
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

On April 16, 2019, the Attorney General issued a Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of M-S- which sought to eliminate bond hearings altogether for class members. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion to modify the existing preliminary injunction, and defendants moved to vacate the preliminary injunction. On July 2, Judge Pechman upheld the modification of the preliminary injunction and denied defendants' motion. Defendants appealed the court's order, and parties completed briefing at the Ninth Circuit. Bond hearings without procedural protections were restored to class members. In March 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the district court’s preliminary injunction, affirming plaintiffs’ due process right to bond hearings and remanding for further findings with respect to the particular process due to plaintiffs.

On August 24, 2020, the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued an order granting the government’s petition on January 11, 2021, vacating the Ninth Circuit decision and remanding for further consideration in light of Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. On July 29, 2022, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court and vacated the preliminary injunction, ending the protections previously afforded to class members from the injunctive relief.

Third Amended Complaint Filed
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Modification
Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction
Ninth Circuit Court Order
Order on Motions Regarding Preliminary Injunction
Order on Class Certification
Ninth Circuit Brief for Appellants
Ninth Circuit Answering Brief Ninth Circuit Reply Brief
Ninth Circuit Opinion
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Supreme Court Judgment on Petition for Writ of Certiorari

On October 30, 2023, the district court granted preliminary approval to a settlement submitted by the parties with respect to the Credible Fear Class.

Settlement Agreement
Class Notice (English)
Class Notice (Spanish)

On January 5th, 2024, a federal judge in Seattle issued an order approving a settlement agreement providing protections for detained asylum seekers who face prolonged delays before being screened to apply for persecution and torture.

Court Order
Practice Alert

Martinez Baños, et al., v. Asher, et al., 2:16-cv-1454 (W.D. Wash.)

Petition for writ of habeas corpus and putative class action seeking the provision of individualized custody redetermination (bond) hearings for individuals in withholding-only proceedings who are subject to prolonged detention in the Western District of Washington. In 2017, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted, requiring the federal government to provide bond hearings for class members after they had been detained for six months. The Trump Administration appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where the case was consolidated with a similar effort in California argued by the ACLU. Class members again prevailed at the Ninth Circuit, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments for the consolidated cases (Esteban Aleman Gonzalez, et al., v. Merrick B. Garland, et al.) were heard on January 11, 2022.

On June 13, the Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings in Aleman Gonzalez and a related case. The Court rejected the lower courts' rulings and held that the Immigration and Nationality Act permits the federal government to lock up persons seeking protection from persecution or torture until the immigration proceedings conclude, without providing them with a bond hearing. A second question was addressed by the Supreme Court: whether the immigration statute prohibits federal courts from providing injunctive relief on behalf of classes. The Court ruled that the statute prevents federal courts from granting the type of class-wide injunctions that were granted to our clients in lower courts, thus making it more difficult for detained immigrants to challenge government detention policies. The separate constitutional challenges will now go back to the district court.

Current status:
Complaint
Amended Complaint Filed
Amended Motion for Class Certification Filed
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Report and Recommendation
Order Granting Class Certification and Adopting Report and Recommendation.
Ninth Circuit Government's Opening Brief
Ninth Circuit Plantiffs' Answering Brief
Ninth Circuit Government's Reply Brief
Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Supreme Court Petitioners’ Brief
Supreme Court Brief of Respondents
Supreme Court Petitioner’s Reply
Supreme Court Slip Opinion in Aleman Gonzalez
Supreme Court Slip Opinion in Arteaga-Martinez

Wagafe, et al., v. Trump, et al., 2:17-cv-94 (W.D. Wash.)

Class action challenging the federal government’s Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”), an internal vetting program used in evaluating applications before USCIS to deny or indefinitely delay thousands of people from becoming citizens or lawful permanent residents due to unspecified “national security concerns.” Plaintiffs allege the program discriminates against immigrants who are Muslim or from Muslim-majority countries on the basis of their religion and country of origin, and has unlawfully prevented class members from having their applications for adjustment of status and naturalization adjudicated by USCIS. Briefing at the district court is completed and the parties have agreed to a stay of proceedings while USCIS undergoes an internal review.

Current status:
Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
First Amended Complaint
Second Amended Complaint
Amended Motion for Class Certification
Defendants’ Answer
Order Denying the Government’s Motion to Dismiss and Certifying a Nationwide Class
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, et al., v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., 1:19-cv-03283-RDM (D.D.C.)

Suit in which NWIRP is one of three organizational plaintiffs against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging new rules and policies DHS began implementing in 2019 making it significantly more difficult and expensive for immigrants to apply for vital immigration benefits, including naturalization, employment authorization, asylum, and others. DHS also raised existing fees, and for some types of relief, raised fees by more than 500 percent. In September 2020, the organizations moved for a preliminary injunction to postpone the effective date of the new fee rule. In 2021, as part of Executive Order 14,012, “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans,” the Biden administration informed the court they were directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to undertake a review of the 2020 fee rule and the fee waiver process. The case has been stayed pending new rulemaking.

Complaint
Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Second Amended Complaint
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Order on Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Ilai Kanutu Koonwaiyou v. Antony Blinken and U.S. Department of State, 3:21-cv-5474 (W.D. Wash.)

Complaint on behalf of a U.S. national whose application for a certificate of noncitizen national status was denied by the Department of State based on an erroneous interpretation of § 1408. The department erroneously concluded that because the plaintiff’s mother’s nationality was recognized after his birth, she was not a U.S. national when he was born, and therefore he was not born to a U.S. national parent to satisfy § 1408(4). The complaint sought review of the denial, correction of the legal error, and declaration of plaintiff’s U.S. national status. The district court granted defendants, motion to dismiss, and plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and found that, pursuant to the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1408, Mr. Koonwaiyou is eligible to become a U.S. national based on the facts he alleged in his complaint. On November 16, 2023, following remand to the district court, the Court remanded the case back to the Department of State to adjudicate Mr. Koonwaiyou's passport application in a manner consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion.

Complaint
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss
Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Defendants’ Supplemental Brief in Response to Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief in Response to Motion to Dismiss
Order Granting motion to dismiss
Ninth Circuit opinion
Order remanding case

Prior Litigation

NWIRP and Cheng v. Sessions III, et al., 2:17-cv-716 (W.D. Wash.)

Lawsuit against EOIR seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in response to letter from DOJ instructing NWIRP to cease-and-desist providing limited legal services to unrepresented individuals in removal proceedings. NWIRP was granted a temporary restraining order, and then later a preliminary injunction, holding that DOJ could not prevent the organization from providing limited legal services as it would violate First Amendment rights. Moreover, the preliminary injunction prohibited the government from instituting disciplinary proceedings against any other nonprofit (and any private attorneys working in collaboration with the nonprofit) for providing limited legal services to pro se respondents in removal proceedings. After discovery, the parties entered into settlement negotiations and ultimately agreed to a settlement that, among other things, required DOJ to initiate a rulemaking process with the aim of promulgating a new rule that affirms the right to provide such limited services to pro se individuals in removal proceedings.

Pursuant to the parties' settlement, on September 14, 2022, EOIR published a rule that expressly allows immigration practitioners to provide limited legal services to unrepresented individuals in removal proceedings. The advisory below for practitioners explains the contours of the new rule. Unlike the preliminary injunction, the new rule also makes clear that private attorneys can provide limited legal assistance without being forced to enter an appearance in immigration court that then commits them for the rest of the proceedings. Practitioners must, however, submit the new form E-61 (for immigration court, form E-60 for the Board of Immigration Appeals) along with any document that they are helping pro se respondents prepare for filing with the immigration court. The rule also changes the regulations defining practice and preparation, but makes clear that any document preparation by a practitioner requires submitting an E-61 (even if it was purely ministerial). In addition, the practitioner must fill in and sign the "prepared by" box on forms that request that information, or must sign and date any other brief/motion that they submit as part of a limited service. Relatedly, the rule clarifies that non-practitioners (non-lawyers and non-accredited representatives) may not provide legal advice, but if they perform the function of purely transcribing responses to a form, unlike practitioners, they are not required to submit an E-61. The rule went into effect on November 14, 2022.

Complaint
Motion for temporary restraining order
Order granting TRO
Motion for preliminary injunction
Order granting PI
Order denying in part and granting in part the government's motion to dismiss
Answer
Notice of Settlement and Settlement Agreement

NWIRP EOIR Limited Representation Rule Advisory - Updated January 2023

Evelyn Gomez, et al., v. Ur Jaddou, et al., 1:21-cv-09203 (S.D. N.Y.)

Class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders challenging USCIS’s rescission of a decades-old policy which previously allowed them to seek lawful permanent resident status. For nearly three decades, USCIS and its predecessor deemed TPS holders who traveled abroad and then lawfully returned to the United States to have been “inspected and admitted or paroled”—one of the requirements for gaining lawful permanent resident status. In August 2020, however, USCIS adopted Matter of Z-R-Z-C-, an Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decision holding that a TPS holder’s lawful return did not satisfy the inspection and admission or parole requirement. Instead, under Matter of Z-R-Z-C-, TPS holders who first entered the United States without inspection were deemed ineligible for green cards even after they are subsequently inspected upon returning from travel abroad. All named plaintiffs would have been eligible for green cards but for USCIS’s current policy, which did not recognize them as being inspected and admitted.

On July 1, 2022, USCIS rescinded its designation of the decision of the AAO in Matter of Z-R-Z-C-. Defendants agreed to favorably adjudicate the applications of all named plaintiffs and dismiss the case, and counsel for plaintiffs issued a practice advisory on the rescission of Matter of Z-R-Z-C-, linked below.

Complaint
Defendants’ Brief on Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Opposition Memo to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Policy Memo - Rescission of Matter of Z-R-Z-C-
Practice Advisory and FAQ - Rescission of Matter of Z-R-Z-C-

Miriam Velasco de Gomez, et al., v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., 2:22-cv-368 (W.D. Wash.)

Class action complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief challenging USCIS’s nationwide policy of denying applications for adjustment of status based on an erroneous interpretation of the “unlawful presence bar” at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). The named plaintiffs were all eligible to adjust their status and become lawful permanent residents of the United States but for USCIS’s unlawful interpretation.

June 24, 2022, USCIS announced new policy guidance regarding the unlawful presence bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(B), establishing that a noncitizen who seeks admission more than 3 or 10 years after triggering the bar will not be deemed inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) even if they have returned to the United States before the relevant period of inadmissibility elapsed.

USCIS agreed to reopen and re-adjudicate the 79 cases of plaintiffs and putative class members identified by plaintiffs’ counsel in Velasco v. USCIS, and stipulated to dismiss the case.

Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Stipulation to Dismiss

Practice Advisory

Rafael Pimentel-Estrada, v. Nathalie Asher, et al., 2:20-cv-495 (W.D. Wash.)

Petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of an individual who was at serious risk of severe illness or death if he contracted COVID-19 while in civil immigration detention. Plaintiff filed this petition at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when it became clear medically vulnerable individuals were at risk of death if they remained in dense congregate settings like detention centers. On April 28, 2020, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order was granted, and the court ordered Mr. Pimentel’s immediate release from detention. On June 3, 2020, the court converted the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction.

Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order
Order Converting Temporary Restraining Order into Preliminary Injunction

Ramirez Medina v. Asher, 17-cv-00218 (W.D. Wash.)

Challenge to revocation of an individual’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in violation of controlling guidelines. Plaintiff Mr. Ramirez Medina filed a complaint seeking restoration of his DACA and work authorization and confirming that the benefits provided under DACA are protected by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Mr. Ramirez Medina also filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting a bond hearing, which was granted, and he was subsequently released from detention. On October 9, 2019, the court denied Mr. Ramirez Medina's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's motion to dismiss, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Ramirez Medina appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, and eventually stipulated to dismissal once the parties reached settlement.

Current status:
Complaint
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Order Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Complete Administrative Record and Granting in Part Defendants' Motion for Protective Order
Third Amended Complaint
Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Second Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismisss
Ninth Circuit Plaintiff’s Opening Brief
Ninth Circuit Government’s Answering Brief
Ninth Circuit Plaintiff’s Reply Brief

Maria Campbell Davis, et al., v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., 2:20-cv-02770 (E.D. Penn.)

Class action complaint for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief filed on behalf of a class of lawful permanent residents who applications for naturalizations had been approved by USCIS but who were unable to complete the last step of the naturalization process—the oath ceremony—due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar delays occurred throughout the country creating a backlog of thousands who remained waiting to be sworn in as U.S. citizens. Plaintiffs sought either expedited judicial oath ceremonies or immediate administrative naturalization in order to accommodate delays in the path to citizenship for hundreds of class members. The case was dismissed July 28, 2020, after USCIS completed naturalizations for the named plaintiffs and 2,202 members of the putative class.

Complaint
Motion for Class Certification

Title VI Civil Rights Complaint: Enforcement Officials' Collaboration with Border Patrol

Title VI complaint regarding discriminatory actions by a law enforcement officer of the U.S. Forest Service. The USFS officer violated the complainant’s civil rights by triggering an immigration enforcement action against her on the basis of her ethnicity and that of her companion, calling Border Patrol before even approaching her vehicle under the pretense of “translation assistance.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights made the final agency decision that discrimination in violation of 7 C.F.R. § 15d occurred. The agency committed to civil rights training and policy changes.

Civil Rights Complaint
Decision of Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, USDA

Administrative Claim Against Spokane County on Behalf of Unlawfully-Detained Individual

In December 2019, NWIRP filed a general liability claim for damages against Spokane County on behalf of an individual who was held in Spokane County Jail for over one month without any lawful basis. Though the individual was sentenced to time already served, Spokane County Jail placed an “immigration hold” on the individual based solely on an administrative warrant and request for detention from U.S. Border Patrol, neither of which were signed by a judge. The jail continued to hold this individual for over one month, until Border Patrol agents picked him up from the jail. The claim letter stated that Spokane County’s actions violated both the Fourth Amendment and state tort law. The county agreed to settle the claim for $60,000.

Redacted Claim Letter to Spokane County
Redacted Settlement Agreement

E.D.R. v. Chad Wolf, et al., 2:20-cv-377 (W.D. Wash.)

Petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of an individual who was detained at the Northwest Detention Center for over a year and a half. Once in removal proceedings, the individual applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the convention against torture. Her case was appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was held in abeyance in order to permit USCIS to adjudicate her application for a T visa, which was based on the fact that she was a victim of trafficking. The individual requested that the District Court order respondents to release her or to provide her with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden to justify her continued detention. The judge granted the request and ordered respondents to provide the petitioner a bond hearing.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and Return
Petitioner’s Traverse
Respondents’ Reply to Petitioner’s Response to Motion to Dismiss
Report and Recommendation
Order Granting Habeas

Vincent Fredrics Banda v. Kirstjen Nielsen, et al., 3:18-cv-6031 (W.D. Wash.)

Petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of an asylum seeker detained for over one year due to respondents’ failure to locate or identify proper translation or interpretation services for his immigration proceedings. Petition argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids such arbitrary and prolonged detention, and that his detention was presumptively unconstitutional after six months without a hearing before a neutral decision maker. The district court ultimately ordered respondents to provide petitioner with a bond hearing.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Respondents’ Return Memo and Motion to Dismiss
Petitioner’s Traverse and Response to Motion to Dismiss
Respondents’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Report and Recommendation
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation

Council on American-Islamic Relations—Washington, v. United States Customs and Border Protection, United States Department of Homeland Security, 2:20-cv-217 (W.D. Wash.)

Complaint under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on behalf of plaintiff Council on American-Islamic Relations—Washington (CAIR-WA). In 2020, CAIR-WA filed a FOIA request to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in order to obtain information about an incident at the Blaine Port of Entry along the U.S.-Canadian border in which individuals who had been born in Iran and their families were detained for extended questioning by CBP officers. CBP denied the issuance of a directive to detain Iranian-Americans and then failed to respond to the FOIA request within the statutory timeframe, which led to this lawsuit in the Western District of Washington. On October 5th, 2020, the court granted CAIR-WA’s motion for summary judgment and ordered CBP to produce the requested records, which confirmed that there existed a CBP directive to detain Iranian-Americans, that people were detained for extended periods of time, and that CBP had intentionally misled the public about the directive. The case was subsequently dismissed in May 2021.

Complaint
Defendants’ Answer
First Amended Complaint
Defendants’ Second Answer
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Leaked CBP Directive
Initial FOIA Response
Second FOIA Reponse
Defendants’ FOIA Production
Defendants’ Additional FOIA Production

Carlos Rios, v. Pierce County, et al., 22-cv-05021 (W.D. Wash.)

Carlos Rios, a U.S. citizen, filed a lawsuit against Pierce County and Pierce County Jail deputies seeking damages and declaratory relief for his unlawful imprisonment and violations of his civil rights under the Fourth Amendment, Washington Law Against Discrimination, Keep Washington Working Act, and state tort law. Mr. Rios’s complaint was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on January 12, 2022. In November 2019, Mr. Rios was arrested in Pierce County and taken into custody on a misdemeanor, but a day later, his charges were dropped, entitling him to immediate release. However, based on a detainer request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Pierce County Jail deputies continued to hold Mr. Rios in jail even though they had no probable cause or judicial warrant to do so. Pierce County deputies subsequently handed Mr. Rios over to the GEO Corporation employees who arrived at the jail to transport him to the Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC) in Tacoma, disregarding his repeated pleas that he was a U.S. citizen. As a result, Mr. Rios was unlawfully incarcerated at the NWIPC for one week—until ICE officers finally realized that he was, in fact, a U.S. citizen and thus could not be subject to deportation. Mr. Rios previously filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government and reached a settlement in that case in September 2021.

On March 14, 2022, Mr. Rios agreed to end his lawsuit against Pierce County and jail deputies after reaching a settlement awarding him damages.

Complaint
Settlement Agreement

Carlos Rios, v. United States of America, et al., 22-cv-05021 (W.D. Wash.)

Suit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) filed on behalf of a United States citizen seeking damages for his unlawful arrest and imprisonment and violations of his civil rights under federal and state law. The government and Mr. Rios entered a settlement agreement in September 2021.

Complaint

Elshieky v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-00064 (E.D. Wash.)

Suit against Border Patrol under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for misconduct at the Spokane Intermodal Station. Mohanad Elshieky filed a complaint in federal district court after Border Patrol officers pulled him off of a bus during a layover. Mr. Elshieky, who had previously been granted asylum in the United States in 2018, was detained by Border Patrol officers even after producing valid identification documents demonstrating that he was lawfully present in the United States.

The complaint was filed in federal district court in February 2020, and the parties agreed to a settlement in March 2021 and an award of damages to the plaintiff.

Complaint
Motion to Dismiss
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Answer
Settlement Agreement

Sosa Segura v. United States, No. 2:19-cv-00219 (E.D. Wash.)

Suit against Border Patrol under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for misconduct at the Spokane Intermodal Station. Agents profiled and stopped Mr. Sosa while he was transferring buses, demanded his “papers,” and escalated their detention after he showed them a “know your rights” card.

The complaint was filed in federal district court in June 2019, and the parties agreed to a settlement in March 2021 and an award of damages to the plaintiff.

Complaint
Motion to Dismiss
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Answer
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Order Denying Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Deposition Excerpt on Actionable Intelligence
CBP Memo on Transportation Checks
Settlement Agreement

Vangala, et al., v. USCIS and DHS, No. 3:20-cv-08143 (N.D. Cal.)

Challenge to USCIS's policy and practice of rejecting certain immigration applications on the basis of nothing more than spaces left blank on the application forms. This new policy reflected a monumental shift in adjudication standards, enacted by USCIS without notice to the public. As a result, USCIS rejected thousands of applications, resulting in lost deadlines for some of the most vulnerable immigrants, including asylum applicants and survivors of serious crimes.

In response to the Vangala lawsuit, USCIS agreed to stop applying the rejection policy to asylum and U visa applications filed on or after December 23, 2020, while the parties engage in settlement negotiations.

Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
Vangala Settlement FAQ

Mendoza Garcia v. Okanogan County, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00340 (E.D. Wash.)

Individual § 1983 claim seeking damages and declaratory relief against Okanogan County, the Okanogan County Sheriff's Office, and the Okanagan County Department of Corrections for unlawfully holding Ms. Mendoza Garcia for two days after she was ordered to be released on her own recognizance from the Okanogan County Jail. The county kept Ms. Mendoza Garcia in custody solely on the basis of an administrative immigration detainer from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which does not afford the county legal authority to hold someone.

In March 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement with an award of damages to the plaintiff.

Complaint
Settlement Agreement

Moreno, et al., v. Nielsen, et al., 1:18-cv-01135 (E.D. New York)

Class action on behalf of recipients of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) who reside in Circuit Court jurisdictions where USCIS routinely fails to acknowledge TPS as satisfying the requirement for inspection and admission in order to adjust their status and receive lawful permanent residency. However, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have held that a TPS holder is considered in “lawful status as a nonimmigrant” and therefore eligible to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR). Class members assert that Defendants’ failure to grant applications for LPR status to TPS holders is in violation of the TPS statute.

Complaint
Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Opposition Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Reynaga Hernandez v. Skinner, et al., 1:18-cv-00040 (Dist. of Montana)

Individual § 1983 claim seeking damages and declaratory relief against a Yellowstone County judge and deputy sheriff for unlawfully detaining and arresting plaintiff while he was testifying on behalf of his wife at Yellowstone County Justice Court. Mr. Reynaga asserted both that the Defendant judge overstepped his authority in calling local law enforcement from the Yellowstone County Courthouse, and also that local law enforcement overstepped authority in arresting and detaining Plaintiff without probable cause that he had committed any crime. Mr. Reynaga's motion for summary judgment was granted on his § 1983 claims. Defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which ultimately upheld the decision of the district court. The parties settled the case on February 23, 2021.

Complaint
Defendants' Answer
Defendant Skinner's Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Hernandez's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Ninth Circuit Defendants’ Opening Brief Ninth Circuit Plaintiff’s Answering Brief Ninth Circuit Reply Brief Ninth Circuit Opinion

Mendez Rojas, et al., v. Johnson, et al., 2:16-cv-1024 (W.D. Wash.)

Mendez Rojas is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of asylum seekers challenging the federal government’s failure to give them notice of the one-year deadline for filing asylum applications as well as its failure to guarantee them a mechanism through which to abide by that deadline. On March 29, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the government to provide notice to class members of the one-year filing deadline and to adopt, publicize, and implement uniform procedural mechanisms that will ensure that class members are able to file their asylum applications in a timely manner. The parties have now reached a settlement agreement for implementing the court’s order.

For more information on this lawsuit, please visit our resources page.

Complaint
Motion for Class Certification
Order Granting Class Certification
Order Denying Government’s Motion to Dismiss
Plantiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Settlement Agreement
Mendez Rojas Frequently Asked Questions for Practitioners
Mendez Rojas Frequently Asked Questions for Class Members

Lanuza v. Love, 2:14-cv-1641 (W.D. Wash.), 15-35408 (9th Cir.)

FTCA damages action against the Unites States and Bivens claim against an ICE prosecutor who forged documents he submitted to the immigration court in order to deprive the plaintiff of his statutory right to seek a form of immigration relief. On March 20, 2015, the district court dismissed Lanuza’s Bivens claim and four of the FTCA claims that were time-barred by the statute of limitations, leaving only the malicious prosecution FTCA claim. Mr. Lanuza appealed the dismissal of the Bivens claim to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the dismissal, extended Bivens remedy to Mr. Lanuza, affirmed the order denying qualifying immunity to Mr. Love, and remanded. After remand, Mr. Lanuza reached a settlement agreement over the Bivens claim and moved to dismiss that claim. On August 6, 2019, the district court granted the U.S.'s motion to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim.

Complaint
Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
Order Denying US' Subsequent Motions to Dismiss
Ninth Circuit Opinion

Enrique Ahumada-Meza v. City of Marysville and Matthew Goolsby, No. 2:19-cv-1165 (W.D. Wash.)

Individual § 1983 claim seeking damages and declaratory relief against the City of Marysville for unlawfully holding Mr. Ahumada-Meza overnight after he was ordered to be released from the Marysville Detention Center. The city kept Mr. Ahumada-Meza in custody solely on the basis of an administrative immigration detainer, which does not afford the City legal authority to hold someone. On January 8th, Mr. Ahumada-Meza settled this lawsuit. According to the terms of the settlement, the City agreed to pay Mr. Ahumada $85,000 for violating his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully detaining him pursuant to a detainer issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In addition, the City has changed its policy to ensure that other immigrants are not unlawfully detained.

Complaint filed
Settlement agreement and policy statement

J.E.F.M., et al., v. Holder, et al., 2:14-cv-1026 (W.D. Wash.), 15-33758 (9th Cir.)

Ninth-circuit-wide class action seeking the recognition that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act require government-appointed counsel for unrepresented minors in removal proceedings.

Current status:
Complaint filed
Motion for class certification filed
Order granting class certification
Order denying in part government’s motion to dismiss
On appeal, order from Ninth Circuit granting appeal dismissing claims for lack of jurisdiction. Petition for rehearing en banc filed
The petition for rehearing en banc was denied on November 13, 2018
The panel denied plaintiff's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision and held that it is not established law that minors in immigration court are entitled to court-appointment counsel
Oral arguments for a similar case before the Ninth Circuit, arguing for a categorical right to court-appointed counsel for minors (C.J.L.G. v. Whitaker et al.), were heard en banc on December 10, 2018.
Opinion from the re-hearing en banc of CJLG

Khoury v. Asher, 14-35482 (9th Cir.), 16-1363 (SCOTUS)

Class action lawsuit challenging the federal government’s policy and practice of subjecting immigrants to mandatory detention (without the possibility of bond) even though they were not taken directly into immigration custody when released from criminal custody.

Complaint
Motion for class certification
Motion for summary judgment
District court order certifying class and granting summary judgment, ordering the government to grant bond hearings to the class
On appeal heard with Preap v. Johnson
Order from Ninth Circuit upholding favorable ruling
Order from the United States Supreme Court granting government’s petition for certiorari combined with Preap v. Johnson
Arguments for Nielsen v. Preap were heard before the Supreme Court on October 10, 2018.
Supreme Court decision upholding mandatory detention

Rodriguez Macareno v. Thomas, et al., 18:cv-0421 (W.D. Wash.)

Individual § 1983 claim seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief against Tukwila Police Department for actions taken against him and their policies and practices countenancing such actions: namely, seizing him—the victim of a crime who sought police assistance—in order to investigate his immigration status, and subsequently extending his seizure in order to communicate with federal immigration enforcement officers and effectuate his transfer to federal immigration custody. Mr. Rodriguez asserts that Defendants have no authority to detain or extend any detention for purposes of investigating immigration status or transferring custody of an individual to federal immigration authorities, and that such actions violate his Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. On May 8, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that defendant officers violated the Fourth Amendment seizing Mr. Rodriguez. Plaintiff settled all remaining claims against defendants.

Complaint filed
Plaintiff's motion for protective order
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment regarding qualified immunity
Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment
ACLU Amicus brief
Defendants' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment regarding qualified immunity
Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissal of all claims
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment
Order granting plaintiff's motion for a protective order and denying defendant's motion to compel
Motion for Summary Judgment

Sanchez Ochoa v. Campbell, et al., 1:17-cv-3124 (E.D. Wash.), 17-35679 (9th Cir.)

Individual lawsuit seeking damages and declaratory/injunctive relief against Yakima County for its unlawful policy and practice of placing immigration holds on individuals in its custody on the basis of ICE administrative warrants, which do not afford the County the requisite legal authority to hold these individuals.

Complaint filed
Motion for temporary restraining order filed
Order from district court granting the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order requiring that the unlawful immigration hold be lifted
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, remanding case to district court
Defendants' motion for summary judgment
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
Order denying cross-motions for summary judgment
The parties reached a settlement and Yakima County agreed to change its policy related to immigration holds.

Ali, et al., v. Trump, et al., 2:17-cv-135 (W.D. Wash.)

Putative class action challenging President Trump’s unlawful suspension of immigrant visa applications via executive order.

Complaint filed; motion for class certification filed
Order staying case pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the appeals in IRAP v. Trump and Hawai‘i v. Trump.
On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs voluntary moved to dismiss the case without prejudice, and the case was closed on September 21, 2018.

Olivera Silva v. Campbell, et al., 1:17-cv-03215 (E.D. Wash.)

Individual § 1983 claim seeking damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief against Yakima County for failing to release Mr. Olivera after he posted bond, and for Defendants’ unlawful policy and practice of placing immigration holds on individuals in its custody on the basis of ICE administrative warrants, which do not afford the County the requisite legal authority to hold these individuals.

Complaint filed
Defendants' answer to complaint
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgement
Plaintiff accepted Defendants' offer of judgment and the case is now closed.

Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, 16-35385 (9th Cir.)

Challenge to the government’s authority to detain individuals in withholding-only proceedings without affording them bond hearings.

Current status:
NWIRP joined prior counsel to file a petition for rehearing en banc after the Ninth Circuit ruled against petitioner, finding that the petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing.
The court denied the petition and issued an amended opinion.
Filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
The petition for writ of certiorari was denied on October 29, 2018

Jesus Ramirez v. Dougherty, et al., 14-35633 (9th Cir.)

APA challenge to USCIS policy denying persons with Temporary Protected Status opportunity to apply for adjustment of status based on U.S. citizen immediate relative.

District Court order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order from Ninth Circuit upholding district court’s order, finding the government’s interpretation violates the plain statutory language, and clarifying the right of all TPS recipients in the Ninth Circuit to apply for adjustment of status when they have approved visa petitions filed by immediate relatives.

Gomez Maciel v. Coleman and City of Spokane, 2:17-cv-292 (E.D. Wash.)

Individual damages action against police officer and the City of Spokane for unlawful arrest of plaintiff—who was the victim of a traffic accident—while the police officer contacted CBP about the plaintiff and waited for CBP to arrive on the scene.

Complaint filed. Settlement entered, providing damages for Plaintiff, revision to the Spokane Police Department policy manual, and training to officers.