08/25/2005
Immigrants Win Right to Proof of Lawful Status
Court Grants Judgment For Thousands of Lawful Permanent Residents Kept From Work, School, Family
SAN FRANCISCO, August 25, 2005 - A federal court granted summary judgment in favor of a nationwide class of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who to date have been denied documentary proof of their lawful status (or "green cards"). In a decision issued yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy of withholding documentation from persons already determined to be lawful permanent residents by Immigration Courts was arbitrary and capricious, and violated the DHS’s nondiscretionary duty to issue documentation in a timely manner. The plaintiffs in the litigation are represented by Cooley Godward LLP, the Texas Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF).
"This ruling recognizes that thousands of lawful permanent residents nationwide have been wrongfully denied their proof of status,” said Javier N. Maldonado, Executive Director of the Texas Lawyers’ Committee. "The Department of Homeland Security can no longer deprive thousands of lawful permanent residents of the essential documentation that enables them to work legally, obtain identification documents, and visit their families abroad," said Mr. Maldonado. The DHS had acknowledged that as many as 12,539 persons determined to be lawful residents since October 1, 2000 had not yet received documentation of their lawful status. The DHS and Department of Justice had argued that their policies were justified by the need to conduct additional background checks on these individuals before issuing documentation.
The federal court specifically found that the national security rationale did not support a blanket policy of withholding temporary documentation of lawful status from class members. The court noted that the government had failed to establish an actual connection between any class members and a national security threat, and had failed to adequately consider existing alternate mechanisms for addressing national security objectives. The court also found that prolonged delays were not justified in view of the admitted speed with which the majority of background checks could be performed. The court concluded that, absent any particularized showing of a national security threat, “defendants’ national security argument cannot excuse the various permutations of bureaucratic errors, administrative backlogs, and inter-agency communication lapses that have caused the delays at issue in this lawsuit.”
Litigation.