In a case with a similarity to the one being litigated in New York, USCIS sued a group of illegal aliens who had entered the country illegally. This case has been before the courts for more than a year now and has yet to reach a conclusion. In this article, we’ll look at the facts of this lawsuit, how it relates to the larger issue of unlawful entry into the United States, and what role the Obama administration and their Department of Homeland Security are playing in this lawsuit.
On a basic level, the two lawsuits are not much different. The class action lawsuit, brought by a group of 18 illegal alien students seeking to extend their education in the United States under the federal H-1B visa program, was filed in federal court. The students filed the initial visa delay lawsuit in October 2021 after USCIS temporarily stalled or refused to process the applications for these programs which were submitted in lock boxes at various Border Patrol stations in Texas and Arizona. At the same time, USCIS was also preparing to process the additional applications for naturalization, which are part of the larger roll-back of executive orders that had been ordered by then-President Obama in January 2021.
One of the main issues in the lawsuit is that although USCIS had approved processing of the original H-1B visa requests for the majority of the applicants who applied, USCIS did not receive any final approval for accepting those study visas from the overwhelming majority of applicants who filed for them. The reason for this was because USCIS was not accepting any of the approved study visas that were filed by international students. A majority of the international students had either already received an acceptance letter for a US college or university or were going to be attending one soon. So, when the number of visa rejections started to mount, the Obama administration and USCIS realized that something was seriously wrong.
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) lost several important legal cases as a result of the lawsuit filed by the association representing the students. In one case, the court ordered the agency to allow students who had already obtained an approved H-1B visa to continue to work in the United States legally. In another case, the judge ordered the agency to allow students who qualified for temporary worker permits under the employment laws passed by the WIOA to proceed with those permits. Another significant case resulted in the dismissal of USCIS of charges it was somehow discriminatory in approving a program that would allow illegal aliens to work in the United States without appropriate documentation.
After the USCIS refused to allow the lawsuit to proceed, the association representing the applicants filed a Notice of Adjudication with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The notice of adjudication alleged that USCIS did not have the proper basis to reject the H-1B visa applications of eligible applicants who had qualified based on factual evidence provided by an internal USCIS computer system. The United States Department of Justice, which is responsible for handling immigration-related lawsuits, opposed the filing of the complaint and requested that the court dismiss the case. In June 2021, the court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. On appeal, the United States Department of Justice requested that the United States District Court “re-adjudicate” the case, stating that there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the denial of the visa.
On July 7th, the federal judge in San Francisco ruled in favor of the applicant in the lawsuit. The judge stated that the testimony of the computer examiner at the hearing of the initial visa application was inherently subjective and unreliable because it was based on hearsay. The judge further stated that the local field office supervisor was not biased because he had signed the form on the table in front of him. The court found that the applicant’s claim that discrimination occurred due to the computer examiner’s non-attestation of accuracy was not a fact or error, but a legal theory that could have been rejected by a more traditional court of law.