Lopez-Venegas Settlement Agreement

Although the ACLU originally estimated that thousands of people might be eligible for the landfill, the number it ultimately identified was much smaller. The ACLU said this «reflects the high bar to qualify as a class member under the agreement.» The scope of the transaction agreement was limited to Southern California. DHS agreed to reform the voluntary return system in Southern California and accepted oversight of ACLU lawyers until 2017. These changes should ensure that individuals are fully informed of the consequences of adopting voluntary return. Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson – In June 2013, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit challenging the widespread practice of immigration officers, which required immigrants to sign «voluntary» departures. Under the terms of the transaction, nine plaintiffs returned to the United States and their families in August 2014, with the same legal status as before the documents were signed. Hundreds, if not thousands, of non-citizens who have signed «voluntary return» forms in Southern California and have been deported to Mexico now have the opportunity to apply for return to the United States and apply for legal status. The collective action of the Lopez Venegas Settlement Agreement has been dissolved, but the site www.misalidavoluntaria.org/ can serve as a community resource for systemic reforms achieved by the implementation. As part of the agreement, the government has set up a website that announces the comparison (www.salidavoluntariaacuerdo.com).

Prior to the December 23, 2015 deadline, nearly 100 Mexican nationals identified by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) searched as part of the settlement agreement at Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson, NO CV 13-03972-JACK (PLAx), (C.D. Cal, March 11, 2015) [PDF version]. The transaction contract was open to qualified individuals who agreed to a voluntary return to Southern California between June 1, 2009 and August 28, 2014. In this article, I receive the transaction agreement and news regarding the outcome for qualified people. While the settlement agreement was limited to Southern California, the facts that led to the litigation show why it is crucial for a foreigner in the custody of immigration officials to immediately seek immigration advice. Immigration legislation is very complex and an individual should not expect immigration enforcement authorities to explain things such as the possible consequences of voluntary return. However, the role of an immigration lawyer is to protect the interests of his client. An experienced immigration lawyer will be able to carefully study the situation before explaining the various options that can be made available to his client. 6. Class Counsel receives $700,000 (in total) in fees and fees, in full account of the legal costs and fees of this action, as well as all obligations and litigation that results from it.