GHP believes that all individuals, whether our clients or not, should be treated fairly. To that end, GHP looks for cases that may be a good vehicle for legal reform. GHP has handled many lawsuits that have created a favorable precedent for other cases. Sometimes the best way to bring about fair treatment for the greatest number of people is through class action lawsuits, which can affect thousands of individuals. GHP has brought many class action lawsuits that have successfully challenged the unfair and unconstitutional treatment of noncitizens. Through class action lawsuits and impact litigation, we seek to protect the legal and constitutional rights of noncitizens and their family members.
Among the significant lawsuits that GHP has handled are the following:
- A.B.T. et. al. v. USCIS, Case No. 11-2108-RAJ (W.D. Wash. 2013) (class action lawsuit on behalf of asylum applicants who were unable to obtain work authorization) For current and important information about this case, please see here.
- Khoury v. Asher, et al., Case No. 13-cv-01367 (W.D. Wash, March 11, 2014) (class action lawsuit challenging Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s policy in denying bond hearings to certain class of detinees) For current and important information about this case, please see here.
- Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 618 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2010) (nationwide class action lawsuit challenging United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) policy of refusing to allow religious workers to file concurrent I-360/I-485 applications)
- Wayne Smith and Hugo Armendariz v. United States, Case No. 12.562 (IACHR 2010) (lawsuit brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights challenging U.S. deportation policies as violating the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man) For current and important information about this case, please see here.
- Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (individuals who obtained permanent residence under the Special Agricultural Worker (“SAW”) legalization program are eligible for waivers of deportation)
- Lee v. Gonzales, Case No. C04-449 RSL (W.D. Wash, Feb. 16, 2006) (statewide class action requiring USCIS to reopen naturalization applications that were denied for lack of good moral character)
- Quezada-Bucio v. Ridge, 317 F.Supp.2d 1221 (W.D.Wash. 2004) (challenge to Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) policy of mandatory detention for certain noncitizens)
- Northwest Immigrant Rights Project v. USCIS (“NWIRP”) (formerly known as Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS), 306 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002), 976 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1992), 717 F.Supp. 1444, 709 F.Supp. 998 (W.D.Wash. 1989) (class action lawsuit challenging the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”)’s interpretation of “known to the Government” and “continuous unlawful residence” for purposes of the legalization program)
- Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (national class action setting aside INS regulation allowing administrative denaturalization)
- Proyecto San Pablo v. INS, 189 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 1999), 4 F.Supp. 2d 881 (D.Ariz.1997), 70 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 1995), 784 F.Supp. 738 (D.Az. 1991) (class action lawsuit on behalf of legalization applicants who were deported after January 1, 1982) For current and important information about this case, please see here.
- Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 032 (9th Cir. 1998) (national class action invalidating INS practices of issuing document fraud penalties)
- Gete v. INS, 121 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 1997) (class action lawsuit challenging procedures used by INS in seizure and forfeiture cases as unconstitutional)
- Pastor v. Smith, 977 F.Supp. 1415 (W.D.Wash. 1997) (challenge to INS policy of mandatory detention of certain non-citizens)
- Reno v. Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. 43 (1993) (class action lawsuit brought for the benefit of certain individuals attempting to apply for legalization)
- INS v. Legalization Assistance Project, 510 U.S. 1301 (1993) (stay of injunctive relief for the benefit of legalization applicants)
- Lopez v. INS, No. 78-1912-WMB (C.D. Calif., Aug. 20, 1992) (class action requiring INS to stop questioning aliens upon request to speak to counsel)
- Campos v. Smith, 791 F.Supp 262 (W.D.Wash. 1991) (lawsuit involving the rights of legalization applicants to travel outside the United States without advance permission from INS)
- UFW v. INS, Civ.No. S-87-1064-LKK (E.D.Cal. 1989), see Interpreter Releases, Vol. 66, No. 16 (April 24, 1989), pp. 452, 460-471 (class action lawsuit on behalf of SAW legalization applicants challenging the procedures used in adjudicating SAW applications and the burden of proof imposed by INS)