After the court determined his medical condition, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation Senior Litigation Counsel Theodore W. Atkinson, who is representing the federal government, participated through telephonic conference from the Commonwealth Health Center, where he is currently confined.
The plaintiffs’ attorney Stephen Woodruff was joined by his clients Gerardo De Guzman, Hector Sevilla, Carlito Marquez, Bonifacio Sagana, Eduardo Elenzano, Jong Ho Lee, and Manuel Villaga.
The Philippine Consulate General’s legal officer Dyan Kristine B. Miranda also attended the hearing with the plaintiffs’ family members and nonresidents.
Outside the courthouse, other nonresident gathered in the Kristo Rai Church’s parking lot across from Horiguchi Building. They stayed there until the court hearing ended shortly before noon.
Woodruff said they are “not challenging the [federalization law or the Consolidated Natures Resources Act], but are challenging [the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s] botched implementation of the statute.”
Woodruff further told the court that they are “not asking for the suspension of the CW transitional program.”
Atkinson said the plaintiffs “can’t show irreparable harm,” only inconvenience.
He noted that two of the plaintiffs — small-scale entrepreneurs Villaga and Jong Ho Lee — have submitted CW petitions.
Woodruff said one of the plaintiffs is out of status.
All of them, he added, will suffer irreparable harm.
Woodruff said “the heart of the problem” is that nonresidents would be accruing unlawful presence in the CNMI, as a result of the implementation of the CW final rule which, he said, is contrary to the U.S. Congress’ intent.
“The CNMI cannot afford to lose [thousands of] nonresident workers,” Woodruff told the court.
He said it is “not true” that nonresidents on islands are “leeches” because people stay and leave based on economic conditions.
When asked by the judge how the plaintiffs arrived at their requested 180-day stay, Woodruff said the number of days “should be more than a year so that businesses could make intelligent decisions during the transition period.”
Atkinson said the issue is about a policy choice that the plaintiffs’ disagreed with.
He said DHS merely exercised its discretion under the mandate of the U.S. Congress.
According to Atkinson, the plaintiffs are asking for two different things: more time for employers to transition, and for DHS to go through the drawing board again for the CW final rule.
He said it took a lot of time for different federal agencies to review the final CW rule.
Atkinson said even Woodruff noted that the interim final rule and the published CW final rule were “virtually identical.”
