We filed a class action lawsuit regarding delays in adjudicating I-601A cases in January 2023. We are amending that case and, because we’ve received a lot of inquiries about people wanting to join, we will add additional plaintiffs as part of filing the amendment. Note that we have changed the requirements regarding the date of filing an I-601A in order to be eligible to be in the case. Individuals who filed prior to February 1, 2022, will now be able to join the suit. We anticipate filing the case before the middle of February 2023.
To review a copy of the filed complaint, click here. To review the press release from the filing of this case, click here.
We are looking to assist individuals who have filed Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers with USCIS more than a year prior to February 1, 2023. We will be suing USCIS because the two USCIS service centers managing those cases are failing to work on these applications in a timely manner. The Nebraska Service Center is currently averaging 28 months for these cases. The Potomac Service Center is taking 37 months.
The failure to adjudicate these applications in a timely manner means thousands of people are being unnecessarily delayed from consular processing and waiting in the United States without the ability to work and have lawful status.
Federal agencies have to do their job with regard to the necessity and convenience of the interested party. We will be asking a federal judge to order USCIS to immediately adjudicate our plaintiffs’ applications, and for USCIS to change their policies and procedures to ensure that processing times return to the realm of reason.
This case is being filed by IMMPact Litigation, a joint venture of the law firms Kuck Baxter in Atlanta, Siskind Susser in Memphis, Joseph & Hall in Denver, and Bless Litigation in Boston. The firms have some of the most experienced immigration lawyers in the country and have now litigated together in more than 30 mass federal cases. IMMpact received the 2022 American Immigration Lawyers Association Litigation Award and the American Bar Association’s James E. Keane Award for the innovative use of technology in managing our litigation.
Anyone who filed an I-601A application before February 1, 2022, is eligible to participate in this case.
We are charging $1000 per applicant to participate in the case. The fee is a one-time charge, and we will not be billing for additional expenses and legal fees. The fee is due at the outset. We will be tracking our hours for this case and if someone who retains us withdraws shortly after submitting the representation agreement and payment, but before filing, we would be able to offer a partial refund.
However, once the amended complaint has been drafted and filed with the court, all fees will be considered earned, and no refunds will be issued after that point. Please note we are moving quickly on filing this amended lawsuit and aim to file it by mid-February 2023.
Yes. While filing as a class action can sometimes slow the case down, it also makes it harder for the government to fight on the issue of venue and try and get the case divided up and heard in multiple courts.
As for whether to sign up, that is up to each individual to decide, in consultation with the attorney handling their I-601A application with USCIS (if applicable). By seeking class certification, we hope to resolve these delays for all I-601A applicants, not just named plaintiffs. That said, the class has not been certified by the court and there is no guarantee that it will be certified. In addition, in our experience, the agency often tends to “pick off” named plaintiffs, meaning that named plaintiffs may get adjudication during the litigation or ahead of others in the class. Whether those potential benefits are worth any individual’s investment in legal fees or whether an individual would rather wait for potential benefit as a non-named class member is a determination that must be made by the individual in consultation with their attorney (if applicable).
We have filed the case in the District Court of the Western District of Washington since we have some of our plaintiffs in that location. Judge Tara Lin, a recent appointment of President Biden, is the judge in the case.
We anticipate closing signing up to be in the case on February 6th before midnight eastern time.
Simply speaking, we are seeking to force the government to immediately adjudicate the applications of the plaintiffs in our litigation. We believe the government is likely to speed up the completion of individual cases even before we get in front of a judge in order to “moot out” plaintiffs. We’ve seen this in similar cases including our various other suits currently in the courts. For others, it will take the judge’s order for their cases to be adjudicated. If the government does not comply with the judge’s order, they risk being held in contempt.
This lawsuit, if successful, will result in a decision on your I-601A waiver application. The decision could be either an approval or a denial. Following a decision on the I-601A waiver application, you will still need to apply for your immigrant visa at a consulate.
We have found over the years that the opposite tends to be the case – people who file a lawsuit are likely to get better treatment than people who don’t. Knowing that an applicant is not afraid to sue – something that is time-consuming and expensive for the government to have to defend – usually means that the litigant will be treated respectfully. Note that we are filing to speed up processing on these cases. If a case has significant problems, suing the government is not going to solve that.
Any lawyer who promises success in litigation is not serving a client well. Litigation is unpredictable by its nature. We do not know which judge will be assigned to the case, for example. We have had success when it comes to fighting similar cases and we also believe our arguments are strong and have been bolstered by what we have learned in those cases. So we are optimistic. But we do not believe it is appropriate to quantify that.
We will have periodic live streams to brief plaintiffs on the progress of the case and answer questions and we send out emails to clients when there is news on the case. We do NOT have the ability to discuss your individual case situations and you are not hiring us as your individual immigration lawyer. You should be hiring a lawyer on an individual process if you need this type of assistance and you are welcome to hire any of the three firms co-counseling on this case if you need to talk to an immigration lawyer and do not have counsel already. Links to each firm are at www.immpactlitigation.com.
Again, if getting your individual questions answered is a priority, you should consider filing your case individually. We have created a web form that you can use to update us about your individual cases. And you are welcome to post questions in our regular live streams.
We ask that you do not copy us on your emails to the NVC and the consulates. Instead, include correspondence from the consulates on the web for what we are going to provide.
We are not representing you with respect to your individual case and cannot advise on your individual case strategy. If you are represented by counsel, you should talk about the pluses and minuses of joining the lawsuit and whether it makes sense for you. If you are already independently pursuing a mandamus action, you would not be able to be a plaintiff in this case.
In addition, we are not assessing the merits of your case for an I-601A waiver. The waiver requires that you establish “extreme hardship” to a qualifying relative and that will be inadmissible during consular processing only for an unlawful presence ground found in section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. You, and your individual lawyer representing you on your waiver application at USCIS (if you have one), are responsible for having submitted sufficient evidence to establish extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. This lawsuit, if successful, will result in a decision on your I-601A waiver application. The decision could be either an approval or a denial. In addition, if the I-601A waiver is approved, there is no guarantee that your immigrant visa application will be approved by the consulate. And there is no guarantee of when your case will be scheduled for an interview at the consulate. To be clear, this case is only seeking a decision on the I-601A waiver application and nothing else.
We could start to see results soon now that the case has been filed. That’s because the government often “moots out” cases and gets people out of the litigation by approving their cases quickly. This would likely apply to people who have had their interviews scheduled and it may also accelerate the scheduling of interviews for others. We filed our complaint in January and we expect a hearing on a preliminary injunction within several weeks of filing the amended complaint. However, note that the courts can be backed up and it has taken longer in the last year to get hearings. Do not be surprised if it takes a couple of months to get that hearing. The preliminary injunction hearing is the hearing where a judge can order temporary relief until the case eventually gets to trial. For most, this is actually a more critical finding than the eventual decision in the case. In some cases, a judge will delay this hearing in the expectation that the government will move cases during this wait.
If we win, we would expect I-601A approvals for our plaintiffs to be issued within a few weeks of the judge issuing his order. If the government is not moving these cases in a satisfactory manner, we will seek redress from the judge in the case. The government can be held in contempt by a judge should they fail to move these cases.
Attorney Advertising. This information is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Past results and testimonials are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of the outcome of your case, and should not be construed as such. Past results cannot guarantee future performance. Any result in a single case is not meant to create an expectation of similar results in future matters because each case involves many different factors, therefore, results will differ on a case-by-case basis. By providing certain contact information herein, you are expressly authorizing the recipient of this message to contact you via the methods of communication provided.
NUVEW | Accessibility Notifications | Privacy Policy | Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.