This class action challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s willful refusal to follow the precedent decision of the Ninth Circuit in Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit determined that individuals who have previously been removed or deported may apply for adjustment of status (under INA § 245(i)) along with an accompanying I-212 waiver application.
The suit is brought by Northwest Immigrants Right Project, the American Immigration Law Foundation, and Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP. The case is Duran Gonzalez v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, C-06-1422, and was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Thursday, September 28, 2006.
3/14/08: The Ninth Circuit ordered the government to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc. The court also granted AILA's motion to submit a brief as amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs.
2/27/08: Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a petition for rehearing en banc. The Ninth Circuit had extended the time for filing the petition until February 28, 2008.
12/19/07: Class counsel prepared a Duran Gonzalez Q&A to address issues that have arisen following the Ninth Circuit’s adverse decision, including the effective date of the decision, qualifications for class membership, and strategies for class members and others affected by the decision.
12/3/07: On November 30, 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision vacating the preliminary injunction in Duran Gonzalez v. DHS. Read more about the court's decision.
8/5/07: The court held the oral argument and has taken the matter under advisement.
6/25/07: The Ninth Circuit calendared the case for oral argument in Seattle, Washington on August 6, 2007.
6/1/07: Defendants filed their opening reply brief in support of their interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
4/27/07: Plaintiffs filed their answering brief in opposition to the interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs asked the Court to uphold the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction.
3/2/07: Defendants filed their opening brief in support of their interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. They argue that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction.
1/8/07: Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from the district court’s order granting class certification and a preliminary injunction. The notice of appeal is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals. The district court’s order remains in effect.
12/19/06: The court issued an order modifying the Preliminary Injunction. The changes made to the order are minor. Click here to see the order.
11/14/06: The court issued an order granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification. For more information on the order, click here. To view the order, click here.
10/27/06: Plaintiffs filed replies to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
10/18/06: Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
10/11/06: The court issued an order granting temporary relief. For information about the TRO, click here.
10/11/06: The court scheduled a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for November 6, 2006.
10/4/06: At a hearing on October 4, 2006, the court granted temporary relief.
