Court denies requests to intervene in immigration lawsuit

Posted: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:09 pm
EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO | STAFF WRITER

As a federal court ruling on the challenge to President Barack Obama’s immigration initiatives looms, a federal judge denied the request of three immigrants to intervene, finding that the United States adequately represents their interests.

“The Court finds this matter to be time sensitive and the addition of new parties will cause undue delay and prejudice,” U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen stated in his order Wednesday.

A ruling is pending on the request of Texas and 25 other states for a preliminary injunction against the United States and members of Obama’s administration to block the implementation of the initiatives pending resolution of the lawsuit they filed in federal court on Dec. 3.

The states are challenging a Nov. 20 memorandum that Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson issued regarding discretion in the deportation of children who came to the United States as children, referred to as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and individuals who are the parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents who have lived in the United States for at least five years and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety, referred to as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA).

Immigrants who are in the country illegally and eligible for the expanded DACA program can start applying on Feb. 18 for deferred removal and work authorizations.

The three immigrants illegally in the country, identified as Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2 and Jane Doe #3 in court records, had sought to intervene as defendants in the lawsuit to protect their legal interests or at the court’s discretion. The women who are from the Rio Grande Valley are the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. They would qualify for DAPA.

Despite denying the women’s motion to intervene, Hanen said he would review the motion of the three women, as he would review friends-of-the-court briefs.

The women contend that they should be allowed to intervene by right because they have a personal interest in defending DAPA to maintain their eligibility for consideration for deferred action.

The United States, Texas and the other 25 states were opposed to the women’s motion to intervene, noting that they are not entitled to intervene as a matter of right because the United States would adequately represent their interests.

eperez-trevino@valleystar.com

http://www.themonitor.com/news/local...e0075ed37.html