Court Grants Class Certification in the AILF Asylee Adjustment Lawsuit

A

alanpero2

Registered Users (C)
Cite as "Posted on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 03011541 (Jan. 15, 2003) ."

On January 14, 2003, the District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and certified a national class and four subclasses of asylees awaiting adjustment in Ngwaniya v. Ashcroft.

I cannot attache the document because this site do not accept pdf files as attachments. Summarizing what the document says:

Forty six asylees (Plaintiffs) with applications for LPR pending before INS have sued the INS, its commissioner and the US attorney general alleging they have improperly administered the system by which asylees become LPR.
Plaintiffs have moved under Federal Rule Procedure for the Court to certify a class and several sub-classes as follows:

Class consisting of all asylees in the US who have applied for LPR and whose applications remain pending.
Subclass I all asylees who filed their AOS on or before 1-16-98
Sub-class II all asylees who filed their AOS after 1-16-98 and on or before 6-9-98
Subclass III all asylees who filed their AOS after 6-9-98
Subclass IV all asylees who applied for or applied to renew an EAD

Defendants asserted that class certification was inappropriate.

Court decission was to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

In summary a battle won by asylees in what it is going to be a long war. However, it is a relief to know that finally our claims are being heard and maybe, who knows? INS will understand they cannot just ignore us and pay more attention to our applications.
If anyone wants a copy of the 14 pages document, provide e-mail address.
Another option is consult with your attorney and get a copy if he/she is member of AILA. Or maybe get a copy thru AILF.
Regards
 
Originally posted by alanpero2
Cite as "Posted on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 03011541 (Jan. 15, 2003) ."

On January 14, 2003, the District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and certified a national class and four subclasses of asylees awaiting adjustment in Ngwaniya v. Ashcroft.

I cannot attache the document because this site do not accept pdf files as attachments. Summarizing what the document says:

Forty six asylees (Plaintiffs) with applications for LPR pending before INS have sued the INS, its commissioner and the US attorney general alleging they have improperly administered the system by which asylees become LPR.
Plaintiffs have moved under Federal Rule Procedure for the Court to certify a class and several sub-classes as follows:

Class consisting of all asylees in the US who have applied for LPR and whose applications remain pending.
Subclass I all asylees who filed their AOS on or before 1-16-98
Sub-class II all asylees who filed their AOS after 1-16-98 and on or before 6-9-98
Subclass III all asylees who filed their AOS after 6-9-98
Subclass IV all asylees who applied for or applied to renew an EAD

Defendants asserted that class certification was inappropriate.

Court decission was to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

In summary a battle won by asylees in what it is going to be a long war. However, it is a relief to know that finally our claims are being heard and maybe, who knows? INS will understand they cannot just ignore us and pay more attention to our applications.
If anyone wants a copy of the 14 pages document, provide e-mail address.
Another option is consult with your attorney and get a copy if he/she is member of AILA. Or maybe get a copy thru AILF.
Regards
Click to expand...

kelvin2088@hotmail.com
 
Kelvin,

All this granting of class action status does is to ensure that IF-repeat IF-the court ultimately orders any relief, asylees who are not named in the suit can also benefit.

But this action must still be litigated, a process that could take many many years. I am familiar with one that took 13 years. I have spoken to two administrative lawyers and they believe that at the end of the process the court will not intervene.


Originally posted by kelvin2088
If no effect, what's the intention of that lawsuit?:confused:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The lawsuit had done a lot by the pressure it created. First, we are not required to apply for employement authorization anymore. Second, many of us got a finger print notice and many of those who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit got their approvals. Third, if you want to apply for a travel document it will take no more than a month. Fourth, the INS has ordered its sloppy employees to follow on with the 10000 quota since they even did not follow that before the lawshuit. AS a mtter of fact the year before the lawsuit was launched, they only gave approvals to 3000 asylees instead of 1000. Fifth, you never know..may be this lawsuit will not take 13 years as the one you mentioned Gilbert.... The lawsuit was primarly launched because of mishandling cases. I know 5 people who were included in this suit and they all got an approval. May be we should do like them. I learned one big thing here. Suing makes a difference in this country
 
Originally posted by shamshon
The lawsuit had done a lot by the pressure it created. First, we are not required to apply for employement authorization anymore. Second, many of us got a finger print notice and many of those who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit got their approvals. Third, if you want to apply for a travel document it will take no more than a month. Fourth, the INS has ordered its sloppy employees to follow on with the 10000 quota since they even did not follow that before the lawshuit. AS a mtter of fact the year before the lawsuit was launched, they only gave approvals to 3000 asylees instead of 1000. Fifth, you never know..may be this lawsuit will not take 13 years as the one you mentioned Gilbert.... The lawsuit was primarly launched because of mishandling cases. I know 5 people who were included in this suit and they all got an approval. May be we should do like them. I learned one big thing here. Suing makes a difference in this country
Click to expand...

We were not required EAD even before the lawsuit. It is not true that because of the lawsuit we don't require EAD. And one of the motives for the lawsuit is that INS was precisely that INS only approved 3000 applicants or so. Other than that, I agree that this lawsuit could put some extra pressure on INS to not misshandling our cases anymore.
 
I just read a news:

It said that there r some senators fighting for a new bill which support to take away the 10000 ceiling
(seems it's not S.1311)
 
S1311 DIED when Congress adjourned last year, as did all bills that were not approved.

In this Congress, at least two bills have been introduced so far to deal with the cap, HR 82 and HR 47.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top