Case: Aparcio v. Blakeway

5:00-cv-00434 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Filed Date: April 14, 2000

Closed Date: 2002

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 14, 2000, three Mexican nationals who had applied for naturalization filed a class-action lawsuit against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the INS improperly used and relied upon confidential information taken from their prior applications made in the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160 et seq. Under the SAW program, seasonal agricultural workers could apply for "tempora…

Under the SAW program, seasonal agricultural workers could apply for "temporary resident" immigration status during a specified eighteen-month period if they could prove both that they had resided in the U.S. and had performed "seasonal agricultural services" in the U.S. for at least 90 days during the period from May 1, 1985 to May 1, 1986. Thereafter, the temporary resident workers would automatically receive permanent resident status after a period of one or two years. The SAW program established that any information provided in the SAW application would be treated as confidential and could not be used by the INS in other proceedings.

Plaintiffs claimed that the government violated the confidentiality provision of the SAW program when Plaintiffs applied for naturalization years after applying for the SAW program. Each claimed that during their naturalization application process, the INS quizzed them extensively about their SAW status and reviewed confidential information from their SAW applications.

After filing the initial action, Plaintiffs moved for class certification and requested a preliminary injunction. The government moved to dismiss the case.

On August 31, 2000, the District Court (Judge Samuel Fred Biery, Jr.) granted the government's motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs' request for class certification and preliminary injunction. The Court determined that the plaintiffs' claims were unripe because they had not exhausted the statutory appeal procedures before filing suit. Plaintiffs appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2002).

Summary Authors

Stephen Imm (8/14/2007)

People

Judge(s)

Biery, Samuel Frederick Jr. (Texas)

DeMoss, Harold R. Jr. (Texas)

Dennis, Don C (Texas)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Fischer, Robert Sheldon (Texas)

Garcia, Carmen Ilene (Texas)

Judge(s)

Biery, Samuel Frederick Jr. (Texas)

DeMoss, Harold R. Jr. (Texas)

Dennis, Don C (Texas)

Garwood, William Lockhart (Texas)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Kenney, Mary A (Texas)

Other

Fischer, Robert Sheldon (Texas)

Garcia, Carmen Ilene (Texas)

Hines, Barbara (Texas)

Paniszczyn, John Francis (District of Columbia)

Reyna, Nelda C. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

00-51133	Appellate Docket (PACER) Aparicio v. Blakeway U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	Sept. 1, 2000	Sept. 1, 2000 Docket
5:00-cv-00434	Docket (PACER) Aparicio v. Blakeway	Oct. 28, 2002	Oct. 28, 2002 Docket
00-51133	Opinion Aparicio v. Blakeway U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	Aug. 15, 2002	Aug. 15, 2002 Order/Opinion 302 F.3d 437

show / hide documents

Docket

Last updated March 23, 2025, 9:25 a.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	April 14, 2000	Complaint filed. Filing Fee: $ 150.00 Receipt # 162555 (Pages: 18) (sj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)	PACER
2	April 14, 2000	Motion by Javier Aparicio for preliminary injunction (sj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)	PACER
3	April 14, 2000	Memorandum by Javier Aparicio in support of motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] (sj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)	PACER
	April 14, 2000	Case assigned to Honorable Fred Biery (sj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)	PACER
4	April 26, 2000	Motion by Javier Aparicio with memorandum in support for class certification (fe) (Entered: 04/27/2000)	PACER
5	May 10, 2000	Notice of attorney appearance for Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. by John F. Paniszczyn, Nelda C. Reyna (rg) (Entered: 05/11/2000)	PACER
5	May 10, 2000	Motion by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. request that court and plaintiff serve two attorneys for the defendants , and to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal (rg) (Entered: 05/11/2000)	PACER
6	May 19, 2000	Order granting motion request that court and plaintiff serve two attorneys for the defendants [5-1], granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal [5-2] (rg) (Entered: 05/22/2000)	PACER
7	May 25, 2000	Motion by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. for protective order , and/or to quash the deposition of Wiley Blakeway (fe) (Entered: 05/26/2000)	PACER
8	May 31, 2000	Response by Javier Aparicio motion for protective order [7-1], motion to quash the deposition of Wiley Blakeway [7-2] (rg) (Entered: 06/01/2000)	PACER
9	June 2, 2000	Order granting motion for protective order [7-1], granting motion to quash the deposition of Wiley Blakeway [7-2] (rg) (Entered: 06/05/2000)	PACER
10	June 2, 2000	Reply by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. to response to motion for protective order [7-1], motion to quash the deposition of Wiley Blakeway [7-2] (rg) (Entered: 06/05/2000)	PACER
11	June 5, 2000	First Amended complaint by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola, amending complaint [1-1] ) (rg) (Entered: 06/06/2000)	PACER
12	June 6, 2000	Motion by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint (rg) (Entered: 06/07/2000)	PACER
12	June 6, 2000	Response by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] (rg) (Entered: 06/07/2000)	PACER
13	June 13, 2000	Recommendations for scheduling order by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola (rg) (Entered: 06/14/2000)	PACER
14	June 15, 2000	Unopposed Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola to extend time to respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)	PACER
14	June 15, 2000	Response by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)	PACER
15	June 15, 2000	Notice of filing notice to the court of proof of service of complaint by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)	PACER
17	June 15, 2000	Return of service executed as to I.N.S. on 4/19/00 by serving the Attorney General Janet Reno, using certified mail (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)	PACER
18	June 15, 2000	Return of service executed as to I.N.S. on 4/20/00 by using certified mail (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)	PACER
19	June 15, 2000	Return of service executed as to Kenneth G. Pasquarell on 4/19/00 by using certified mail (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)	PACER
20	June 15, 2000	Return of service executed as to Wiley Blakeway on 4/19/00 by using certified mail (rg) (Entered: 06/16/2000)	PACER
21	June 20, 2000	Order granting motion to extend time to respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss on or before 6/27/00 [14-1] (rg) (Entered: 06/21/2000)	PACER
22	June 27, 2000	Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendants' exhibit 1 (rg) (Entered: 06/28/2000)	PACER
23	June 27, 2000	Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola for leave to file a response brief in excess of 10 pages (rg) (Entered: 06/28/2000)	PACER
24	July 21, 2000	Reply by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. to response to motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint [12-1] (rg) (Entered: 07/24/2000)	PACER
25	July 26, 2000	Response by Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendants' exhibit 1 [22-1] (kc) (Entered: 07/27/2000)	PACER
26	Aug. 2, 2000	Unopposed Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola for leave to file a reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendant's exhibit 1 (rg) (Entered: 08/03/2000)	PACER
27	Aug. 4, 2000	Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendant's exhibit 1 [26-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/07/2000)	PACER
28	Aug. 7, 2000	Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola for leave to file a surreply to defendants' motion to dismiss (rg) (Entered: 08/08/2000)	PACER
	Aug. 7, 2000	Received plaintiff's surreply to defendants' motion to dismiss (rg) (Entered: 08/08/2000)	PACER
29	Aug. 8, 2000	Reply by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola to response to motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendants' exhibit 1 [22-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/09/2000)	PACER
30	Aug. 24, 2000	Order granting motion for leave to file a response brief in excess of 10 pages [23-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/25/2000)	PACER
31	Aug. 24, 2000	Order granting motion for leave to file a surreply to defendants' motion to dismiss [28-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/25/2000)	PACER
32	Aug. 24, 2000	Surreply by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint [12-1] (rg) (Entered: 08/25/2000)	PACER
33	Aug. 31, 2000	Order dismissing as moot motion to strike paragraphs 18 and 21 of defendants' exhibit 1 [22-1], granting motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint [12-1], denying motion for class certification [4-1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [2-1] (rg) (Entered: 09/01/2000)	PACER
34	Aug. 31, 2000	JUDGMENT for Wiley Blakeway, Kenneth G. Pasquarell, I.N.S. against Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this cause is DISMISSED. (Pages: 1) (rg) (Entered: 09/01/2000)	PACER
35	Aug. 31, 2000	Opposed Motion by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola for leave to file second amended complaint (rg) (Entered: 09/01/2000)	PACER
	Aug. 31, 2000	Mooted motion for leave to file second amended complaint [35-1] (rg) (Entered: 10/16/2000)	PACER
	Aug. 31, 2000	Case closed (rg) (Entered: 09/01/2000)	PACER
36	Oct. 27, 2000	Notice of appeal by Javier Aparicio, Judith Rangel, Eliseo Realzola (lp) (Entered: 10/30/2000)	PACER
	Oct. 30, 2000	USCA appeal fees paid for appeal [36-1] : Appeal Fee: $ 105.00 Receipt # 165804 (lp) (Entered: 10/30/2000)	PACER
	Oct. 30, 2000	Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: appeal [36-1] (lp) (Entered: 10/30/2000)	PACER
	Nov. 9, 2000	Certified and transmitted record on appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals: appeal [36-1] (lp) (Entered: 11/09/2000)	PACER
	Nov. 13, 2000	Return of appeal information sheet received. appeal [36-1] USCA NUMBER: 00-51133 (lp) (Entered: 11/13/2000)	PACER
38	Oct. 15, 2002	Certified copy of judgment of USCA affirming appeal [36-1] (lp) (Entered: 10/15/2002)	PACER
	Oct. 28, 2002	Record on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeal : appeal [36-1] (lp) (Entered: 10/28/2002)	PACER

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory:

Texas

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 14, 2000

Closing Date: 2002

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Class of persons who received permanent resident status through the SAW program and who had applied for or would apply for naturalization through the San Antonio INS office.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

Federal

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.