(Continued On Next Page) : Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class Action

Case 2:20-cv-07407 Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1
1 STACY TOLCHIN (SBN 217431)

2 Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com
MEGAN BREWER (SBN 268248)
3 Megan@tolchinimmigration.com
4 LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN
634 S. Spring St., Suite 500A
5 Los Angeles, CA 90014
6 Tel: (213) 622-7450
Fax: (213) 622-7233
7
8 Counsel for Plaintiffs

(continued on next page)
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 David Alejandro RUIZ; Alberto DAL Case No. ____________

PINO; Richard ROMAY; Sandra
13 HERRERA-MORENO; Angel
14 ZAMBRANO-CANTOR; Aitana Complaint for
CARDOSO; Zhibo ZHANG; Pedro Declaratory and
15 RANGEL-SEGURA; Felipe de Jesus Injunctive Relief
16 VASQUEZ-OROZCO;
Class Action
17 Plaintiffs,
18
v.
19
20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; Chad F. WOLF, in his Official
21 Capacity, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of
22 Homeland Security; UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
23
SERVICES; and Kenneth T. CUCCINELLI,
24 Senior Official Performing the Duties of the
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
25
Services.
26
Defendants.
27
28
1 (continued)
2
JAVIER N. MALDONADO (TX SBN 00794216)
3 (pro hac vice)
4 Law Office of Javier N. Maldonado, PC
JMaldonado.law@gmail.com
5 8620 N. New Braunfels Ave., Ste. 605
6 San Antonio, Tx 78217
Tel. (210) 277-1603
7 Fax (210) 587-4001
8
SABRINA DAMAST (SBN 305710)
9 Sabrina@sabrinadamast.com
10 Law Office of Sabrina Damast, Inc.
510 West 6th Street, Suite 330
11 Los Angeles, Ca 90014
12 Tel. (323) 475-8716
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. Plaintiffs are nine lawful permanent residents who seek to represent a
3 national class of individuals.
4 2. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class seek an order from this Court
5 requiring USCIS to provide timely evidence of permanent resident status.
6 3. In many situations, lawful permanent residents find themselves without
7 a current alien registration card (or green card) because the primary document has
8 been lost or stolen, expired, or confiscated by U.S. Immigration and Customs
9 Enforcement when the individual is placed in removal proceedings. Other lawful
10 permanent residents have never received a green card because the U.S. Citizenship
11 and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has not yet produced one after permanent
12 resident status was granted. The only other available means of obtaining timely
13 proof of legal status is through an appointment made with a local USCIS field
14 office, where a noncitizen meets with a USCIS official and obtains a stamp
15 showing lawful residency in the United States. This stamp is proof of eligibility to
16 remain in the United States, work, travel, and to qualify for certain public benefits.
17 4. However, USCIS refuses to allow lawful permanent residents to make
18 an appointment unless they can meet stringent criteria to demonstrate that their
19 need for documentation is an emergency. USCIS previously had a system in place,
20 InfoPass, which allowed permanent residents to contact USCIS and then make an
21 appointment with their local office to obtain immediate proof of status. However,
22
InfoPass was eliminated at the end of fiscal year 2019, and noncitizens were instead
23
required to contact the USCIS Contact Center and speak to an officer about their
24
cases to potentially be scheduled for an in-person meeting at a USCIS field office.
25
Then, on March 18, 2020, in response to the March 2020 declaration of Covid-19
26
as a nationwide pandemic, USCIS suspended in-person services at all field offices.
27
On June 4, 2020, USCIS reopened for in-person services, including non-emergency
28
2
1 services. USCIS, however, continues to refuse to provide appointments to obtain

2 documentation of permanent residency status unless there is a demonstrated
3 emergency.
4 5. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are unable to demonstrate
5 their lawful status for purposes of employment, travel, and eligibility for public
6 benefits to which they are lawfully entitled. They are also unable to demonstrate
7 their lawful status in the United States, causing great fear and apprehension.
8 6. This suit is now the fourth class-action filed requesting a court to order
9 immigration officials to provide immediate documentation of permanent resident
10 status where permanent resident card requests are pending or have been confiscated
11 during the pendency of removal proceedings. Due to the unavailability of a
12 mechanism to timely issue evidence of lawful permanent resident status, Plaintiffs
13 seek class certification, a declaration that USCIS’ failure to provide a means to
14 timely issue evidence of permanent resident status is unlawful, and injunctive relief
15 requiring Defendants to timely issue permanent residents evidence of their legal
16 status in compliance with the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act
17 and governing regulations.
18
19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20 7. This Court has jurisdiction under, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question),
21 1361 (Mandamus Act), and 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act); and 5 U.S.C. § 702
22
et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act).
23
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because this is a civil
24
action in which Plaintiffs David Alejandro Ruiz, Alberto Dal Pino, Richard Romay,
25
Aitana Cardoso, and Zhibo Zhang reside in this judicial district; a substantial part
26
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district;
27
and there is no real property involved in this action.
28
3
2 PARTIES
3 9. Plaintiff David Alejandro Ruiz is a lawful permanent resident who
4 resides in Los Angeles, California, and whose application for permanent residence
5 was granted by the USCIS on February 19, 2020.
6 10. Plaintiff Alberto Dal Pino is a lawful permanent resident who resides in
7 Westlake Village, California and is in removal proceedings in Los Angeles,
8 California.
9 11. Plaintiff Richard Romay is a lawful permanent resident who resides in
10 Northridge, California and is in pending removal proceedings before the
11 Immigration Court in Van Nuys, California.
12 12. Plaintiff Sandra Herrera-Moreno is a lawful permanent resident who
13 resides in San Antonio, Texas. Her application for cancellation of removal for non-
14 lawful permanent residents was granted by an Immigration Judge on August 8,
15 2019.
16 13. Plaintiff Angel Zambrano-Cantor is a lawful permanent resident who
17 resides in Plainville, Connecticut. His application for cancellation of removal for
18 non-lawful permanent residents was granted by an Immigration Judge on May 19,
19 2020.
20 14. Plaintiff Aitana Cardoso is a conditional lawful permanent resident who
21 resides in Hollywood, California. On January 17, 2019, she filed a Form I-751 to
22
remove the conditions on her residency.
23
15. Plaintiff Zhibo Zhang is a lawful permanent resident who resides in El
24
Monte, California. His alien resident card was confiscated by Customs and Border
25
Protection at the airport following a trip abroad. On January 22, 2020, the
26
Immigration Judge terminated removal proceedings against Mr. Zhang.
27
16. Plaintiff Pedro Rangel-Segura is a lawful permanent resident who
28
4
1 resides in Chicago, Illinois. The Immigration Judge granted Mr. Rangel-Segura’s

2 application for cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents on
3 January 10, 2020.
4 17. Plaintiff Felipe de Jesus Vasquez-Orozco is a lawful permanent
5 resident who resides in San Antonio, Texas and is in removal proceedings in San
6 Antonio.
7 18. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is the federal
8 agency encompassing the United States Citizenship Immigration Services
9 (“USCIS”), United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and U.S.
10 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), which all have the authority to
11 issue immediate proof of lawful permanent resident status.
12 19. Defendant Chad F. Wolf is sued in his official capacity as the Acting
13 Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In this capacity, he is
14 responsible for the administration and enforcement of the immigration and
15 naturalization laws. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a); see also § 402 of the Homeland
16 Security Act of 2002, 107 Pub. L. No. 296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
17 20. Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
18 (USCIS) is part of the Department of Homeland Security and is an “agency”
19 subject to the APA. USCIS is the agency responsible for issuing proof of lawful
20 permanent resident status.
21 21. Defendant Kenneth T. (Ken) Cuccinelli is the Senior Official
22
Performing the Duties of the Director for USCIS. Defendant Cuccinelli is sued in
23
his official capacity only. Defendant Cuccinelli is charged with the direction of
24
USCIS, a bureau within Department of Homeland Security, and implementation of
25
the Immigration and Nationality Act. Specifically, Defendant Cuccinelli is
26
responsible for issuing proof of lawful permanent resident status.
27
28
5
1 BACKGROUND
2 Need for Immediate Documentation of Permanent Resident Status
3 22. The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that the Attorney
4 General provide noncitizens who have “registered” with proof of their legal status,
5 as prescribed by regulations issued by the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(d).1
6 23. The regulations provide that there are various forms to prove
7 “registration” for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(d). 8 C.F.R. § 264.1.
8 24. Proof of lawful permanent resident status is issued under Form I-551,
9 commonly referred to as a “green card.”
10 25. The Immigration and Nationality Act requires those who have
11 registered to carry proof of status with them at all times. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e). The
12 failure to do so is a misdemeanor that could result in a fine of $100 and/or
13 imprisonment of not more than 30 days. Id.
14 26. In addition to requiring documentation of legal status because of
15 requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act, lawful permanent
16 residents require proof of status in order to show employers2 that they are eligible
17 to work, and to travel and return lawfully to the United States.
18
19 Existing Procedure for Obtaining Proof of Status

20 27. Prior to 2019, USCIS offered a system called InfoPass, which was a
21 free online service where noncitizens could schedule an appointment with a local
22
1
23 This requirement has been delegated to USCIS after the creation of the
24
Department of Homeland Security and USCIS. See Homeland Security Act of
2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 110 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002).
25
2
26
The provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA),
Pub. L. No. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3359 (Nov. 6, 1986) require documentation, such as
27 the green card or Form I-94 for asylees, to demonstrate eligibility for employment.
28 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b).
6
1 USCIS immigration officer about their cases. Individuals were required to identify
2 an available timeslot within their local USCIS jurisdiction to meet with an
3 immigration officer, and appointments were frequently unavailable.
4 28. InfoPass was eliminated at the end of fiscal year 2019 because “USCIS
5 determined that most people who made in-person information service appointments
6 through InfoPass could have received the same information by calling the USCIS
7 Contact Center or checking the USCIS website.”
8 29. The new “Information Services Modernization Program,” requires
9 noncitizens to reach out to the USCIS Contact Center electronically or by
10 telephone, and if USCIS personnel is unable to remedy the issue by phone,
11 personnel are supposed to schedule appointments at local USCIS offices.3
12 30. USCIS purports to provide interim documentation of lawful permanent
13 resident status by issuing I-551 stamps at local field offices, by appointment only.
14 A lawful permanent resident requests an appointment by calling the USCIS Contact
15 Center.4
16 31. Since April 1, 2005, noncitizens who have been granted permanent
17 resident status by immigration judges have been instructed on the process for
18 obtaining immigration documentation with a document entitled “Post-Order
19 Instructions for Individuals Granted Relief or Protection from Removal by
20 Immigration Court.”5 This document instructs such individuals to make an
21
22 3
https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-to-expand-information-
23
services-modernization-program-to-key-locations (last visited Aug. 17, 2020).
4
24 https://www.uscis.gov/i-90 (last accessed Jul. 31, 2020);
https://www.uscis.gov/contactcenter (last accessed Jul. 31, 2020).
25
5
26
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/PostOrderInstructions.pd
27
f (last visited Aug. 3, 2020).
28
7
1 appointment at the local USCIS field office.

2 32. Individuals who require Form I-551 stamps also are instructed to make
3 appointments by calling the USCIS Contact Center to obtain proof of permanent
4 resident status.
5 33. Prior to the March 2020 declaration of COVID-19 as a nationwide
6 pandemic, appointments for proof of residency were difficult to schedule with
7 USCIS.
8 34. Presently, USCIS will not issue appointments for I-551 stamps unless
9 there is a critical or emergent need, and USCIS has provided little guidance as to
10 what meets this standard.6
11 35. To compound matters further, USCIS has experienced significant
12 delays in green card production, expanding the need for temporary proof of
13 residency until the actual card is issued. In light of the delay in issuing cards,
14 USCIS has instructed lawful permanent residents to schedule appointments to
15 obtain the Form I-551 stamp as proof of residency.7
16 36. Appointments at USCIS field offices are now largely unavailable,
17 leaving permanent residents unable to obtain evidence of their immigration status
18 for purposes of complying with the requirements of the Immigration and
19 Nationality Act, demonstrating employment eligibility and eligibility for public
20 benefits, and for purposes of travel outside of the United States.
21
22
23
24
6
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/uscis-card-production-delays-
25
obtaining-i-551-stamps-temporary-proof-status (last visited Aug. 3, 2020).
26
7
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/2969646 (last
27
visited Aug. 13, 2020).
28
8
1 Prior Related Litigation to Require Immediate Documentation of

2 Permanent Resident Status
3
37. The issue raised in this class action is not new to the federal courts.
4
38. In 1990, a federal district court in New York certified a local class of
5
lawful permanent residents seeking replacement green cards and ordered that the
6
former Immigration and Naturalization Service provide adequate temporary proof
7
of status to all permanent residents who apply to replace their lost green cards
8
within 21 days of filing.8 Etuk v. Blackman, 748 F. Supp. 990, 1002 (E.D.N.Y.
9
1990), aff'd in part, vacated in part sub nom. Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433 (2d
10
Cir. 1991).
11
39. Lopez–Amor, et al. v. U.S. Attorney General, et al., No. 04–CV–21685
12
(S.D.Fla.) was a 2004 lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Florida seeking
13
immediate proof of permanent resident status on behalf of 34 individual plaintiffs
14
who were granted residency by the immigration court. The case was dismissed after
15
the temporary evidence of resident status was provided as a result of the litigation.
16
40. Santillan v. Gonzales, No. C 04–2686 MHP (N.D. Cal) involved a 2004
17
national class action which resulted in a settlement agreement requiring USCIS to
18
provide appointments for permanent residents who were granted status by an
19
immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals in order to process their
20
green cards. 9 Where InfoPass appointments were not available online, USCIS was
21
22
23 8
The Immigration and Naturalization Service was abolished in March 2003.
24 Its functions were split into two separate agencies within the Department of
Homeland Security, one of which—USCIS —is the Defendant in this case. See
25
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2142 (2002),
26 6 U.S.C. §§ 101-557.
27 9
A 2003 class action Padilla, et al. v. Ridge, et al., No. M 03–126 (S.D.Tex.),
28 was filed on behalf of permanent residents granted status by immigration judges in
9
1 required to schedule appointments within two weeks of the permanent resident’s

2 visit to a local USCIS office, and to provide access to emergency walk-ins. The
3 settlement expired two years after the July 22, 2008 approval by the district court.
4 41. Finally, London v. Campagnolo, No. 2:18-cv-07818-FMO-MAA (C.D.
5 Cal.) was filed in this District on September 7, 2018 as a class action limited to the
6 Los Angeles district. The proposed class consisted of “All individuals who require
7 or will require documentation of their permanent resident or asylee status from the
8 Los Angeles District Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration
9 Services.” The case was dismissed on May 3, 2019 after the local problem was
10 temporarily remedied.
11 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12 42. Every day thousands of persons apply for lawful permanent resident
13 status. Since June 4, 2020, when it opened for in-person services after the
14 announcement of the Covid-19 pandemic, USCIS has begun to adjudicate
15 applications for permanent resident status and has approved such applications.
16 However, because of delays in the production of permanent resident cards, these
17 new lawful permanent residents are without evidence of their status.10 Further,
18 because USCIS has no procedures for providing temporary evidence of lawful
19 permanent resident status, these new permanent residents are without evidence of
20 their status.
21 43. Plaintiff David Alejandro Ruiz is a lawful permanent resident who
22
resides in Los Angeles, California, and whose application for permanent residence
23
24
25
Texas was transferred and consolidated with the Santillan litigation in the Northern
District of California.
26
10
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-trump-administration-is-
27
turning-legal-immigrants-into-undocumented-ones/2020/07/09/15c1cbf6-c203-
28 11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html (last visited Jul. 31, 2020).
10
1 was granted by the USCIS on February 19, 2020. To date, he has still not received
2 an alien resident card. On July 31, 2020, USCIS refused his request for an
3 appointment to obtain proof of his residency. Mr. Ruiz requires proof of his
4 permanent residency to travel internationally for work purposes.
5 44. Individuals granted permanent resident status by the Executive Office
6 for Immigration Review (immigration courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals)
7 are not able to receive a green card until they meet with USCIS, which confirms the
8 grant of lawful permanent resident status and then issues the physical green card,
9 even though the legal status was approved by an immigration judge or the Board of
10 Immigration Appeals. See Santillan v. Gonzales, No. C 04–2686 MHP, 2004 WL
11 2297990 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
12 45. The exclusive means of post-final order processing after a grant of
13 permanent residency is through an appointment at a USCIS field office.
14 46. Plaintiff Sandra Herrera-Moreno is a lawful permanent resident who
15 resides in San Antonio, Texas. Her application for cancellation of removal for non-
16 lawful permanent residents was granted by an Immigration Judge on August 5,
17 2019, but she has been unable to obtain an appointment with United States
18 Citizenship and Immigration Services to begin the process for obtaining her alien
19 resident card. Ms. Herrera-Moreno requested an appointment to obtain proof of her
20 lawful permanent resident status, but USCIS has not provided one. Ms. Herrera-
21 Moreno requires proof of her residency to renew her driver’s license and secure
22
employment to support her family.
23
47. Plaintiff Pedro Rangel-Segura is a lawful permanent resident who
24
resides in Chicago, Illinois. The Immigration Judge granted Mr. Rangel-Segura’s
25
application for cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents on
26
January 10, 2020. Since that date, Mr. Rangel-Segura has been unable to obtain
27
any proof of lawful permanent residency. Mr. Rangel-Segura’s request for an
28
11
1 appointment was refused by USCIS on June 26, 2020 when his counsel was told
2 that USCIS was not setting appointments in cases where immigration judges
3 granted permanent resident status. On August 12, 2020, Mr. Rangel-Segura’s
4 counsel contacted USCIS again by telephone and after his counsel waited on hold
5 for an hour, the line was disconnected. Mr. Rangel-Segura requires proof of his
6 status for his employer.
7 48. Plaintiff Angel Zambrano-Cantor is a lawful permanent resident who
8 resides in Plainville, Connecticut. His application for cancellation of removal for
9 non-lawful permanent residents was granted by an Immigration Judge on May 19,
10 2020. Plaintiff Zambrano-Cantor has contacted USCIS multiple times, but has
11 been refused an appointment. To date, Plaintiff Zambrano-Cantor has been unable
12 to obtain proof of lawful permanent residency. Plaintiff Zambrano-Cantor requires
13 proof his lawful permanent resident status to prove employment eligibility.
14 49. Lawful permanent residents who are in removal proceedings
15 frequently have their green cards taken by DHS while the removal proceedings are
16 pending. Nevertheless, until there is a final order of removal stripping them of their
17 residency, they are entitled to a “temporary permanent resident document that will
18 remain valid until the proceedings are concluded.” 8 C.F.R. § 264.5(g). This has
19 traditionally been the Form I-551 stamp that is issued in lieu of the green card
20 itself.11
21 50. The means for obtaining a Form I-551 stamp to show proof of
22
permanent resident status is through one of the offices of the Department of
23
Homeland Security.
24
25 11
McNary Memorandum, Memorandum from Office of Commissioner
26 to All District Directors (Mar. 14, 1990) contained in 77 No. 44 Interpreter
Releases 1600, 1602 (Nov. 13, 2000).
27
28
12
1 51. Plaintiff Alberto Dal Pino is a lawful permanent resident in pending

2 removal proceedings before the Immigration Court in Los Angeles, California.
3 Plaintiff Dal Pino requires a Form I-551 stamp to show proof of his lawful
4 permanent resident status, eligibility for employment, and eligibility to travel, as his
5 green card was taken by immigration authorities due to his pending removal
6 proceeding. Plaintiff Dal Pino called the USCIS Contact Center to schedule an
7 appointment on July 23, 2020. He spoke with an agent and was told that he would
8 receive a call back within five days regarding whether an appointment would be
9 scheduled with the local USCIS office. He was questioned as to why he needed
10 verification of his permanent resident status and he replied that he required
11 verification for purposes of medical benefits. On July 24, 2020, he received a return
12 call informing him that USCIS required a letter from the medical office stating that
13 they required proof of residency for health insurance before any appointment would
14 be issued. Mr. Dal Pino informed the officer that he did not believe he could obtain
15 such a letter, but was informed that no appointment would be issued without such a
16 letter. He was also forwarded an email from USCIS stating “[t]o help slow the
17 spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), U.S. Citizenship and
18 Immigration Services is scheduling in-person appointments on a case by case basis
19 with priority going to individuals with emergent requests.” Plaintiff Dal Pino has
20 been otherwise unable to obtain an appointment with USCIS to get proof from
21 USCIS of his lawful permanent resident status.
22
52. Plaintiff Richard Romay is a lawful permanent resident who resides in
23
Northridge, California and is in pending removal proceedings before the
24
Immigration Court in Van Nuys, California. Plaintiff Romay’s green card is
25
expired, and he is not able to renew the card while in removal proceedings or obtain
26
evidence of his permanent resident status.
27
53. Plaintiff Romay requires a Form I-551 Stamp in order to show proof of
28
13
1 his lawful permanent resident status and for purposes of employment. Plaintiff
2 Romay contacted USCIS through the contact center multiple times and was told
3 that appointments with USCIS are unavailable except for emergencies due to
4 Covid-19. Plaintiff Romay has been otherwise unable to obtain an appointment to
5 get proof from USCIS of his lawful permanent resident status.
6 54. Plaintiff Felipe de Jesus Vasquez-Orozco is a lawful permanent
7 resident in removal proceedings in San Antonio, Texas. He requires proof of
8 permanent residency to renew his driver’s license, present proof of employment
9 and to travel. On August 11, 2020, he called the USCIS Contact Center and
10 requested an appointment at the local USCIS office to get proof of his permanent
11 resident status. A USCIS representative told Mr. Vasquez Orozco that he would be
12 scheduled for an appointment and would receive a call with the date. The
13 following day, a USCIS representative called Mr. Vasquez Orozco and told him
14 that he could not be scheduled to receive proof of his lawful permanent resident
15 status because no appointments were being scheduled.
16 55. Plaintiff Zhibo Zhang is a permanent resident whose removal
17 proceedings in Los Angeles, California were terminated on January 22, 2020. DHS
18 officials had previously confiscated his residency card, which does not expire until
19 April 19, 2027. On March 25, 2020, he contacted the USCIS Contact Center, but
20 was informed he could not have an appointment to retrieve his residency card
21 unless there were emergency circumstances. Mr. Zhang requires his card, or
22
alternatively, an I-551 stamp in the interim, to comply with the legal requirement
23
that he have proof of his residency status.
24
56. Conditional permanent residents are lawful permanent residents whose
25
residency is valid for a two-year period, at which time the resident must file a
26
petition to request removal of the conditions of residency. 8 U.S.C. §1186a; 8
27
U.S.C. § 1186b. Once the receipt for the petition is issued, the conditional
28
14
1 resident’s status is extended while the petition is pending. The receipt notice serves
2 as evidence of the extension for 18 months.12 However, the processing time for the
3 petitions ranges from 14-48 months, leaving conditional permanent residents in
4 need of evidence of their permanent resident status.
5 57. Plaintiff Aitana Cardoso is a conditional lawful permanent resident who
6 resides in Hollywood, California. On January 17, 2019, she filed a Form I-751 to
7 remove the conditions on her residency. For unknown reasons, she never received
8 a receipt notice for her application, despite submitting a request for a duplicate
9 notice. On April 19, 2019, she received a temporary I-551 stamp, valid for one
10 year. Since that date, Ms. Cardoso has been unable to obtain any additional proof
11 of lawful permanent residency. On June 17, 2020, USCIS informed Plaintiff
12 Cardoso that she could not have an appointment at the local USCIS field office
13 unless there was an emergency need. On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff Cardoso again
14 contacted the USCIS Call Center to request an appointment, indicating that she
15 needed proof of her residency to obtain unemployment benefits. She was told she
16 could not have the appointment unless she produced documentation proving that
17 proof of her residency was required to obtain the benefits.
18 58. Lawful permanent residents whose green cards have expired or have
19 been lost may file a Form I-90 application for a replacement or renewal card. 8
20 C.F.R. § 264.1(c). However, the wait for the issuance of such a card is in excess of
21 nine months.13 Temporary proof of legal status is required while the Form I-90 is
22
pending. Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433, 1448 (2d Cir. 1991).
23
59. Lawful permanent residents who apply for naturalization do not have to
24
25
12
26
https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/update-form-i-797-receipt-notices-form-i-
751-and-form-i-829 (last visited Jul. 31, 2020).
27
13
28 https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/home (last visited Jul. 31, 2020).
15
1 renew their permanent resident cards. The wait for a decision on an application for
2 naturalization is 12.5-18.5 months.14 Once the permanent resident card expires and
3 the naturalization application remains pending, USCIS policy states that
4 naturalization applicant may obtain an I-551 stamp as interim proof of permanent
5 resident status.15
6 60. The exclusive means of obtaining a Form I-551 stamp to show interim
7 proof of permanent resident status is through an appointment at a USCIS field
8 office. However, because USCIS is not issuing proof of permanent resident status,
9 naturalization applicants whose permanent resident cards have expired are without
10 evidence of their lawful status to demonstrate their right to work, travel, renew their
11 driver’s license, and to apply for public benefits.
12
13 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

14 61. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), Plaintiffs
15 bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals.
16 Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief that applies generally to the Proposed Class, as
17 described below.
18 62. The Proposed Class consists of:
19
20 All permanent residents for whom the Department of Homeland

Security has failed to issue timely evidence of lawful permanent
21 resident status and all permanent residents who will require timely
22 evidence of their status from the Department of Homeland Security.
23
63. The Proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
24
impracticable. All members of the proposed class are permanent residents who
25
26
14
27 https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/home (last visited Jul. 31, 2020).
15
28 https://www.uscis.gov/i-90 (last visited Jul. 31, 2020).
16
1 require evidence of their status for purposes of obligations under the Immigration
2 and Nationality Act, employment, access to public benefits to which they are
3 entitled, and international travel.
4 64. Common questions of law and fact bind the members of the Proposed
5 Class. These include, but are not limited to: USCIS’ failure to timely issue evidence
6 of proposed class members’ permanent resident status.
7 65. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the
8 Proposed Class as a whole.
9 66. Plaintiffs know of no conflict between their interests and those of the
10 Proposed Class. The members of the Proposed Class are ascertainable and
11 identifiable through notice and discovery. In defending their own rights, the
12 individual Plaintiffs will defend the rights of all class members fairly and
13 adequately.
14 67. Plaintiffs are represented in this case by counsel with deep knowledge
15 of immigration law, and extensive experience litigating class actions and complex
16 cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have the requisite level of expertise to adequately
17 prosecute this case on their behalf and on behalf of the Proposed Class.
18 68. Defendants have failed to act on grounds generally applicable to each
19 member of the Proposed Class by failing to provide an available procedure to
20 timely issue evidence of permanent resident status.
21 69. A class action is superior to other methods available for the fair and
22
efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all members of the
23
class is impracticable.
24
25
//
26
//
27
28
17
1 CAUSES OF ACTION
2 COUNT ONE
3 (Mandamus Act)
4 (on behalf of named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class)
5 70. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the paragraphs above as though
6 fully set forth here.
7 71. Mandamus relief is appropriate where a claim is clear and certain; the
8 official's duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be
9 free from doubt; and “no other adequate remedy is available.” Patel v. Reno, 134
10 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
11 72. Defendants are obligated by statute to provide permanent residents with
12 proof of their legal status. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(d). This is a nondiscretionary duty.
13 73. The primary means of documenting such status are subject to lengthy
14 delays. Defendants’ policy to provide interim documentation of such status is
15 through appointments at local USCIS field offices; however, these appointments
16 are not immediately available to Plaintiffs, absent a demonstrated emergency.
17 74. Plaintiffs have no other adequate remedy by which to timely receive
18 evidence of their status.
19
20 COUNT TWO
21 (Administrative Procedure Act)
22
(on behalf of named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class)
23
75. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the paragraphs above as though
24
fully set forth here.
25
76. The primary means of documenting lawful permanent status are subject
26
to lengthy delays. Defendants’ policy for providing interim documentation of such
27
permanent resident status is through appointments at local field offices; however,
28
18
1 these appointments are not immediate available to Plaintiffs, absent a demonstrated

2 emergency.
3 77. The failure to timely issue evidence of permanent resident status is a
4 violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as action agency action unlawfully
5 withheld or unreasonably delayed, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), or that is otherwise arbitrary,
6 capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, 5 U.S.C.
7 § 706(2).
8
9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant the following relief:
11 (1) Certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in
12 accordance with this Complaint’s allegations;
13 (2) Declare that USCIS’ failure to provide evidence of permanent
14 resident status is unlawful;
15 (3) Issue a nationwide injunction requiring Defendants to provide
16 Class Members with evidence of their permanent resident status
17 in a timely manner;
18 (4) Award costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred under the
19 Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, et. seq.; and
20 (5) Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
1 Dated: August 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

2 By: S/Stacy Tolchin
3 STACY TOLCHIN (SBN 217431)
Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com
4 MEGAN BREWER (SBN 268248)
5 Megan@tolchinimmigration.com
LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN
6 634 S. Spring St., Suite 500A
7 Los Angeles, CA 90014
Tel: (213) 622-7450
8 Fax: (213) 622-7233
9
JAVIER N. MALDONADO (TX SBN
10 000794216)
11 (pro hac vice)
Law Office of Javier N. Maldonado, PC
12 JMaldonado.law@gmail.com
13 8620 N. New Braunfels Ave., Ste. 605
San Antonio, Tx 78217
14 Tel. (210) 277-1603
15 Fax (210) 587-4001
16 SABRINA DAMAST (SBN 305710)
17 Sabrina@sabrinadamast.com
Law Office of Sabrina Damast, Inc.
18 510 West 6th Street, Suite 330
19 Los Angeles, Ca 90014
Tel. (323) 475-8716
20

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20

(Continued On Next Page) : Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class Action

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Continued On Next Page) : Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class Action

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Continued On Next Page) : Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class Action

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:20-cv-07407 Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1

1 STACY TOLCHIN (SBN 217431)

8 Counsel for Plaintiffs

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

12 David Alejandro RUIZ; Alberto DAL Case No. ____________

1 services. USCIS, however, continues to refuse to provide appointments to obtain

19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 resides in Chicago, Illinois. The Immigration Judge granted Mr. Rangel-Segura’s

19 Existing Procedure for Obtaining Proof of Status

1 appointment at the local USCIS field office.

1 Prior Related Litigation to Require Immediate Documentation of

1 required to schedule appointments within two weeks of the permanent resident’s

1 51. Plaintiff Alberto Dal Pino is a lawful permanent resident in pending

13 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20 All permanent residents for whom the Department of Homeland

1 these appointments are not immediate available to Plaintiffs, absent a demonstrated

9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1 Dated: August 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

21 Counsel for Plaintiffs

You might also like