SAMARN Chaikhamjan and Kraisorn Chaijaroen, a couple and citizens of the Kingdom of Thailand, have joined the lawsuit of nine individuals against federal officials for rejecting the plaintiffs’ petitions for long-term legal residency.
Named as defendants were U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Tracy Renaud.
Samarn Chaikhamjan and Kraisorn Chaijaroen, through attorney Joseph Horey, filed a motion to intervene as plaintiffs in the civil complaint.
Horey stated that like the original plaintiffs, the couple meet the statutory qualifications for CNMI-Long Term Resident status and submitted applications for such status to USCIS during the authorized time period for doing so.
“Also, like the original plaintiffs, [the couple’s] visa applications were rejected on arbitrary and unreasonable grounds, including the supposed use of an ‘outdated version’ of an ancillary form I-765.
“They therefore have an interest in any order the court may issue in the main action mandating defendants to process long-term resident applications properly in accordance with the law, and in the nature and scope of any such order.”
According to the motion to intervene, the couple is in the same situation with the original nine plaintiffs.
However, their lawsuit is not a class action, “but merely an individual action by a group of nine individual plaintiffs, with the result that the scope of any relief will be limited to those plaintiffs,” Horey said.
He added that there are certain differences of fact between the couple’s situation and those of the nine original plaintiffs.
For example, the nine original plaintiffs stated that they submitted their applications on dates “between July 20, 2020, and Aug. 1, 2020,” which were before the Aug. 17, 2020 deadline for submission but after the May 31, 2020 facial expiration date of the forms, Horey said.
For their part, the couple “submitted their applications earlier, on May 27, 2020, before even the facial expiration date on the forms. Also, the applications that [the nine original] plaintiffs resubmitted were initially rejected on the ground that they had used an ‘outdated version’ of the form, then on the basis that they were filed ‘after the program end date.’”
The couple’s “were sometimes rejected on those grounds but sometimes, in addition or instead, they were rejected on various other spurious grounds, for example that the payment amount [was] incorrect,’ that ‘the application ha[d] not been fully completed,’ or that [the couple] had ‘included form types that cannot be processed with Form I-765,’” Horey said.
He reiterated that the couple “shares common fundamental questions of fact and law in the main action, notwithstanding the occasional distinctions.”
For example: Whether an I-765 received by USCIS after its facial expiration date is properly considered “outdated”; whether the use of an outdated form to apply for a benefit is sufficient ground for the denial of the benefit; whether a non-substantive defect in a form that is ancillary, but unnecessary, to the issuance of visa is a proper basis of the refusal of the visa; and whether CNMI long-term resident visa applications are being systematically denied by defendants on spurious grounds.
The nine original plaintiffs are Christine C. Pramis, Christopher R. Manalo, Cesar G. Lopez, Aliilua Panapa Peteru, Veisinia Tilisa Peteru, Pacifico C. Rivera, Ferdinand D. Arago, Anthony M. Alegre and Nimfa T. Tan.
They are not asking the court to adjudicate their eligibility for the long-term resident status.
“Instead, they respectfully seek the narrow relief of an order from this court mandating that the respondents process their applications which were wrongfully rejected,” said attorney Steven Pixley who represents the petitioners.
Pixley said the actions of the respondents in refusing to process the applications of the petitioners is egregious.
On June 25, 2019, then-President Donald J. Trump signed into law the NMI Long-Term Legal Residents Relief Act.
The Act allows certain aliens who have resided continuously and lawfully in the CNMI since Nov. 28, 2009 to apply for permanent CNMI residency status.
Pursuant to instructions promulgated by USCIS, eligible aliens applied for the long-term status between Feb. 19, 2020 and Aug. 17, 2020.
Pixley has asked the district court to issue a writ of mandamus directed to DHS and USCIS, compelling them to accept and process the applications of the petitioners.
“The action of respondents in wrongfully rejecting on three separate occasions the petitioners’ application for [long-term residency] status was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. These petitioners are long-term residents who may lose their status as a direct and proximate result of the arbitrary and capricious actions of the respondents,” Pixley said.
He added that the third rejection of the petitioners’ applications constitutes final agency action. “Petitioners have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,” the lawyer said.
