J.L. v. Lee Francis Cissna

Background

J.L., M.D.G.B., and J.B.A. filed the lawsuit alleging that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had adopted a blanket policy denying petitions for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status. SIJ status can provide eligible unmarried immigrants under 21 a path toward permanent residency and citizenship. The plaintiffs alleged that USCIS wrongly believed California courts lacked authority to make the required findings because those courts could not reunite people ages 18 to 20 with their parents.

The court previously issued a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from denying SIJ status on that ground. It later certified a class consisting of children who had received or would receive guardianship orders under California Probate Code section 1510.1(a) and whose SIJ petitions had been or would be denied because the issuing state court allegedly lacked authority to reunify them with their parents.

Settlement terms

The settlement provides that USCIS will no longer require a state court to have authority to place an SIJ applicant in custody or order reunification with the applicant’s parents when deciding whether reunification is not viable. It recognizes the Probate Division of the California Superior Court as a juvenile court for making SIJ findings and states that qualifying individuals are not disqualified because of their age or because they reached California’s age of majority before obtaining a custodial placement or legal commitment.

The agreement also requires USCIS to follow specified procedures and timelines for adjudicating SIJ petitions, preserve records, and provide compliance reports. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Class members release specified claims arising from the lawsuit but retain the right to challenge decisions on their individual immigration petitions or removal orders. The defendants did not admit wrongdoing. The order did not award attorneys’ fees or costs, although class counsel could later seek those amounts under the agreement’s procedure.

Ruling

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the class’s best interests under the applicable class-action standards. The court found that notice had been properly distributed, that no class member had objected or requested exclusion, and that the settlement complied with the district’s guidance for class settlements. The court GRANTED final approval of the Settlement Agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2).

The settlement and the judgment are binding on the class. The parties must provide updated notice, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement for the period stated in the order. The preliminary injunction will terminate when judgment is entered, subject to the court’s stated authority to address certain violations and related matters. The order itself did not award fees or costs.