The American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project is seeking information to prepare an amicus brief for the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving exclusion proceedings against a lawful permanent resident.

Recently the Federal District Court in Chicago ruled that a lawful permanent resident in exclusion proceedings is entitled to an individualized parole hearing in from an immigration judge or other impartial adjudicator. The judge in the case found that the new Section 236(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which allows INS district directors to solely decide to place someone in custody is an unconstitutional denial of due process.

The ACLU is seeking evidence for its brief to back up the contention that district directors are "structurally biased" and that district directors do not fully and adequately consider the merits of parole requests and routinely deny them in a cursory fashion.

The ACLU is asking that immigration advocacy organizations and immigration professionals provide information on the following questions to Cecilia Wang at 415-621-2493 x 16:

1. Has it been your experience that district directors routinely and typically treat parole requests in a cursory way, and deny them without due consideration of their individual merits?

2. How do district director parole determinations compare to immigration judge bond determinations, as far as the depth of the analysis and weighing of factors?

3. Does your organization have any actual district director parole denials that tend to demonstrate that district directors approach parole requests in a "cookie-cutter" or "rubber-stamp" manner; i.e. that district directors do not give each request individualized and careful consideration? Any such sample denials should be typical.

4. Does your organization have statistics on the frequency of district director grants of parole?

5. Would your organization be interested in signing onto the ACLU amicus brief?