JUDGE GRANTS TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER IN
CSS v. RENO (6-5-98)

FREE NEWSLETTER

Learn how to benefit from United States immigration laws and procedures from a former INS Attorney (1976-82) with over 30 years of experience. SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE is must reading for potential immigrants, employers, human resources managers, immigration attorneys, reporters and policy makers. Join over 55,000 persons in more than 150 countries in subscribing to our FREE monthly e-mail newsletter. E-Mail Address: Your Name:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
IMMIGRATION PROGRAM, et al.,
							NO. CIV. 5-98-625 LKK/JFM
			Plaintiffs,

		v.

JANET RENO, Attorney General of the
United States of America, et al.,			O R D E R

				Defendants.

	On June 5, 1998, a telephonic hearing was held on plaintiffs’ motion
for a temporary restraining order in the above-captioned case.  PETER SCHEY
and CARLOS HOLGUIN appeared for plaintiffs; KEISHA BELL and GLINDELL
WILLIAMS appeared for defendants.  Based on the papers and pleadings on
file herein, the court concludes that serious legal questions are tendered
and that the balance of hardship favors plaintiffs.  Accordingly, a
temporary restraining order will be GRANTED as specified herein.  This
relief shall remain in effort through June 19, 1998, at which time the
court will hold a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunction.

A.  COVERED INDIVIDUALS

	With respect to any individual alien who:
	
	(i) filed an application for legalization under the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. Section 1255a et seq., within the period
specified by subsection (a)(1), or

	(ii)  attempted to file a complete application and application fee
with an authorized legalization officer, including with a Qualified
Designated Entity, but had the application and fee refused or was denied an
application

and against whom proceedings under Chapter 4 of the Title II of the
Immigration and Nationality Act as amended by the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 have been initiated (except
that with respect to work authorization, this relief is not limited to
persons against whom proceedings under Chapter 4 of Title II have been
initiated), the court ORDERS that:

B.	TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

	1.  Defendants are ENJOINED from entering final deportation orders
with respect to any covered individual during the effective period of this
order;

	2.  Defendants are ENJOINED from detaining any covered individual
during the effective period of this order unless the individual is a danger
to the public or there is a good faith belief that the individual is a
flight risk;

	3.  Defendants are ENJOINED from revoking the work authorization of
any covered individual during the effective period of this order.

	Defendants shall not be required by virtue of this order to release
any covered individual who was in detention prior to issuance of this
order.  Defendants shall also not be required by virtue of this order to
affirmatively grant or renew work authorization.

C.	BOND

	Plaintiffs are directed to pay to the Clerk of the Court a bond in the
amount of one hundred dollars ($100).

D.	PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

	A hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is SET
for June 19, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom  No. 1.  Plaintiffs are
directed to submit any additional briefing not later than June 11, 1998.
Defendants shall submit any additional opposition not later than June 16,
1998.

	In addition to any other matters that the parties wish to address, the
parties are directed to brief or be prepared to address at hearing the
following issues:

	1.  Plaintiffs are directed to brief or be prepared to address the
implications of an asserted Congressional intent to end this litigation and
to address on what basis individuals who did not make an application
because they were refused a form may obtain relief in light of the language
Congress employed in Section 377.

	2.  Defendants are directed to brief on what basis Section 377 can be
viewed as rational, if it is interpreted to exclude persons who actually
attempted to apply but were refused an application by an INS employee or
agent.

	IT IS SO ORDERED.

	DATED:  June 5, 1998

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton
Chief Judge Emeritus
United States District Court

Schedule A Legal Consultation

Return to Late Amnesty Cases

Return to Immigration Guide Homepage