Summary

CSS/ NEWMAN

​

In 1986, the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law (“CHRCL”) brought a class action case, Catholic Social Services v. Ashcroft (/INS) (“CSS”), seeking to protect people who had been unlawfully denied amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) because of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States. 

In 1987, CHRCL filed a second class action, LULAC/Newman v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (together, “CSS/ Newman”), which protected the rights of amnesty applicants who were denied lawful status solely because at some point after January 1982 they briefly departed and returned to the U.S. 

The former INS, at the front desks of INS offices, blocked many persons who were in fact eligible for legalization from applying for legalization on account of such absences. Such “front-desked” applicants personally appeared at an INS office to apply for legalization and had with them a complete legalization application and were prepared to pay the legalization application fee. 

CHRCL served as counsel in both CSS/ Newman. After many years of fighting the case, the INS finally agreed to decide the applications of CSS/Newman Class Members even though the statutorily prescribed application year had ended in 1988. 

If the INS believed that an applicant had not been front-desked and was therefore not a CSS/Newman class member, the applicant was entitled to ask a Special Master to review the INS’s decision, and if the special master determined the applicant was a Class Member, they would overrule the INS decision and require the INS to decide the applicant’s eligibility for legalization. 

​

NWIRP

​

In 1988, the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law (“CHRCL”) brought a class action case, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, et al., v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("NWIRP"), seeking to protect people who had been unlawfully denied amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) because the applicant, at some point between 1982 and 1986, appeared to have lawful status even though in fact they did not. 

The former INS incorrectly denied amnesty applications because the applicant, at some point between 1982 and 1986, (1) they lost their eligibility for an immigration benefit before 1982, but the government did not actually rescind that benefit before 1982; (2) they came to the U.S., before 1982, on a valid visa, although they fell out of status before 1982; or (3) they appeared to be in lawful status after 1982 because of receiving an immigration benefit for which they were not actually eligible. 

CHRCL served as counsel in NWIRP. After many years of fighting the case, the INS finally agreed to decide the applications of NWIRP Class Members even though the statutorily prescribed application year had ended in 1988. 

If the INS believed that an applicant had not been incorrectly denied and was therefore not an NWIRP class member, the applicant was entitled to ask a special master to review the INS’s decision, and if the special master determined the applicant was a Class Member, they would overrule the INS decision and require the INS to decide the applicant’s eligibility for legalization.