The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has suspended a lower court's injunction in the CSS2 amnesty lawsuit. That lawsuit stems from the 1986 Immigration Amnesty and was filed by persons who claim that they were denied access to the amnesty due to an overly restrictive interpretation of the requirement that a person have resided continuously in the United States. The Ninth Circuit did not explain its reasons for suspending the injunction. However, in response to the court's expressions of concern, the INS promised to process the legalization applications and not to deport Group 1 class members - those who attempted to file a complete application and fee with the INS during the one year legalization application period, May 1987 to May 1988. This means that 270,000 of the 300,000 CSS plaintiffs may be facing deportation.

The injunction was issued to stop the INS from revoking work permits and beginning deportations of CSS class members. The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Foundation (the "CHRCLF"), the organization that filed the CSS suit, recommends that in light of the decision, CSS 2 class members do not attempt to have their work authorizations renewed. According to the CHRCLF, the following scenarios are possible:

- the INS could make good on its promise to adjudicate the applications of Group 1 class members without further order of the court. Group 1 class members who request the INS to adjudicate their legalization applications are encouraged to report to the CHRCLF the results of those efforts, good or bad. CHRCLF can be reached by e-mail at cholguin@sprynet.com or by phone at 213-388-8693.

- the Court of Appeals could decide that a class action is not appropriate, in which case each Group 1 class member would have approximately five years to file an individual case in federal court, or intervene in - that is, join as a named plaintiff - the CSS2 lawsuit.

- the Court of Appeals could explain that the CSS2 injunction was overbroad in that it required the INS to give work permits to and defer the deportation of Group 2 and 3 class members. If this happens, the district court could reissue a preliminary injunction covering a narrower group of class members.

- The Court of Appeals could decide that the CSS2 injunction was overbroad in that it required the INS to give work permits to and defer the deportation of class members who had been front-desked by QDEs (that is, turned away by QDEs when an attempt to file an amnesty application was made). In this event, the district court could reissue a preliminary injunction much like the one originally issued, but covered persons "front-desked by INS".

The CHRCLF is reminding plaintiffs that they have the right to a hearing before they can be deported and that, by definition, they have been in the US long enough to be eligible for cancellation of removal. Also, Group 1 class members stand a good chance of winning in individual actions or as part of the CSS2 suit. And LULAC class members are still protected by the injunction in that case which bars deportations and mandates the renewal of work permits.

If you are not sure which case you are in, need to notify the lead counsel in this case of your current whereabouts, or have other questions on your status, you can reach the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Foundation at 213-388-8693 or by e-mail at cholguin@sprynet.com or pschey@earthlink.net .