The brand-new 18th edition of Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook is now shipping.Order Now
AILALink puts an entire immigration law library at your fingertips! Search the AILALink database for all your practice needs—statutes, regs, case law, agency guidance, publications, and more.
AILA Doc. No. 20080438 | Dated August 21, 2020 | File Size: 657 KDownload the Document
On August 21, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) entered a Consent Order and Final Statement regarding the class action lawsuit (Subramanya v. USCIS, 7/22/20) challenging the delay in issuance of employment authorization documents (EADs) by USCIS following approval of Form I-765 applications.
The settlement has three main components that AILA members should be aware of:
It is believed that there were approximately 30,000 EADs produced and mailed between the date the complaint was filed on July 22, 2020 and the date the class list was prepared on August 20, 2020.
Members should report any non-compliance with this order to firstname.lastname@example.org.
On August 19, as part of the consent decree to this litigation challenging the delayed production of EADs, USCIS announced that employees may use Form I-797, Notice of Action, with a notice date on or after 12/1/19 through 8/20/20 informing approval of an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) as a list C #7 document for Form I-9 compliance until 12/1/20.
The Court has extended the Temporary Restraining order (TRO) until August 24, 2020 to permit counsel for the Plaintiff and USCIS to negotiate the terms of a consent decree. In the meantime, Plaintiff’s counsel is aware that USCIS is working to eliminate the backlog for production of EADs. To assist counsel to monitor compliance with the TRO, please send an email with the information identified below to email@example.com if the I-765 was approved before August 1, and the EAD has not been received or noted as mailed by case status on line after Tuesday, August 11, 2020.
On August 3, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the class action challenging the delay in issuance of the employment authorization document (EAD) following approval of the I-765 application. The critical points for the TRO were questions of irreparable and immediacy of harm. The Court found for the plaintiffs on both questions. While the ultimate question on certification of the class has been deferred, the Court granted temporary relief to the proposed class, defined as:
All aliens who reside in the United States and have submitted an Application for Employment Authorization that has been approved by USCIS, but who have not received an EAD.
The case has been scheduled for the next hearing on August 10, 2020, at which time the Court will hear evidence and consider the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and class certification. The TRO is valid only until the hearing on the preliminary injunction is completed. (Subramanya, et al., v. USCIS, et al., 8/3/20)
If you represent a member of this class, and your client’s EAD has not been produced and mailed, please consider submitting a declaration from your client, using this template. Please email a PDF copy of the declaration to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please put “Declaration” in the subject line.
We are also interested in monitoring the agency’s progress issuing the EADs and separately request that lawyers representing class members send an email to email@example.com, with “EAD Delays” in the subject, and include the following information:
[[To print the PDF on this page please use the print function in the PDF reader.]]
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 20080438.Open the Document
American Immigration Lawyers Association
1331 G Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Copyright © 1993-
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
AILA.org should not be relied upon as the exclusive source for your legal research. Nothing on AILA.org constitutes legal advice, and information on AILA.org is not a substitute for independent legal advice based on a thorough review and analysis of the facts of each individual case, and independent research based on statutory and regulatory authorities, case law, policy guidance, and for procedural issues, federal government websites.