Official Website of the United States Department of Homeland Security
Share This PageShare This Page PrintPrint

Settlement Agreement in Dayo, et al. v. Napolitano, 11-cv-00728, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

On August 9, 2012, USCIS entered into a negotiated settlement in Dayo, et al. v. Napolitano, 11-cv-00728, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.   Plaintiffs are aliens who are in removal proceedings in the Immigration Court in Los Angeles, California, who renewed their adjustment of status application in removal proceedings and who were denied employment authorization by USCIS. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit in January 2011 to challenge United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) adjudication of employment authorization applications.  Plaintiffs alleged that USCIS was unlawfully finding that an alien in removal proceedings who renewed his application for adjustment of status in removal proceedings did not have a pending application for employment authorization purposes.  Further, Plaintiffs alleged that the Immigration Court in Los Angeles, California, was not providing them with documentary evidence that demonstrated that they had renewed their adjustment of status applications in removal proceedings.   To check to see if you could benefit from this settlement, please see the notice below and the settlement agreement.

Purpose of This Notice

This notice is to inform you of the settlement, explain how you may ensure your inclusion in the settlement group and provide you with assistance if you need additional information.

Generally

Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit in January 2011 to challenge United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) adjudication of employment authorization applications.  Plaintiffs alleged that USCIS was unlawfully finding that an alien in removal proceedings who renewed his application for adjustment of status in removal proceedings did not have a pending application for employment authorization purposes.  Further, Plaintiffs alleged that the Immigration Court in Los Angeles, California, was not providing them with documentary evidence that demonstrated that they had renewed their adjustment of status applications in removal proceedings. 

The Parties

Plaintiffs are aliens who are in removal proceedings in the Immigration Court in Los Angeles, California, who renewed their adjustment of status application in removal proceedings and who were denied employment authorization by USCIS. 

Defendants include USCIS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 

Which Applicants Are Included?

Applicants are defined as individuals who, as of January 25, 2011:  

  • Filed an  I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, with USCIS;
  • Had their I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, denied by USCIS;
  • Were issued a Notice to Appear by the Department of Homeland Security;
  • Are in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court, Los Angeles, California;
  • Renewed, will renew or will file a motion to review their I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court, Los Angeles, California;
  • Filed an I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, with USCIS, in order to seek employment authorization during the pendency of their removal proceedings;
  • Had their I-765, Application for Employment Authority, denied by USCIS on the basis that they did not have evidence of a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, before the Immigration Court, Los Angeles, California.

 If you fit all of the above requirements, and have filed an individual action in federal court seeking review over USCIS’s denial of your employment authorization claim, please note that USCIS cannot adjudicate your application under the settlement agreement.  To benefit from the settlement adjudication benchmarks, you must voluntarily dismiss your action.  The effective result of the agreement is that the Los Angeles Immigration Court will be able to provide you with proof of renewed filing of an adjustment application in order to support any I-765 application that is properly filed with USCIS in the future.  Should your future application filed under the settlement agreement be denied, you would be able to refile your individual action against USCIS. In addition, should your application be denied, you are not barred from bringing a case against USCIS after exhaustion of any administrative remedies. 

The decision to dismiss your individual case is left to you.

 For More Information:

The attorney of record for plaintiffs is Mr. David M. Sturman, who can be contacted at the following address:

David M. Sturman
David M. Sturman APC
16530 Ventura Boulevard Suite 312
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 907-0777
Fax: (818) 907-0039
Email: david@davidsturman.com

Last Reviewed/Updated: 08/16/2012