Justice Action Center, RAICES, and UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy Represent the Seven Intervenors Seeking to Defend Immigration Parole Programs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
VICTORIA, TEXAS –– A federal district court in Texas has granted a motion by seven U.S. citizens over the objection of plaintiff states to become parties in Texas v. DHS, ensuring that their voices will be heard as they defend their ability to sponsor loved ones and others from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela through a recently announced “CHNV” humanitarian parole program. Justice Action Center (JAC), RAICES, and the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the UCLA School of Law represent the seven individuals. The court order means the individual intervenors will now formally join as parties to the case, which to date has only included the arguments and perspectives of the plaintiff states and federal government.
In approving the motion, the court noted, “Proposed Intervenors will significantly contribute to the Court’s discernment of the underlying issues. As individuals directly participating in the parole program, the Court finds that the Proposed Intervenors would provide important perspectives, substantial expertise, and experience that will aid the Court in its consideration of the issues.”
“The court made the right decision today,” said Valerie Laveus, a Florida school teacher and one of the seven intervenors in Texas v. DHS who hopes to sponsor her brother and nephew in Haiti. “Even though the plaintiff states have tried to silence us intervenors, as the Americans who would be most affected by the outcome of this lawsuit, we deserve a seat at the table. I look forward to continuing to fight for my family and the thousands of other Americans who seek to welcome their global neighbors through this transformative program.”
While not a substitute for a functional asylum system, the CHNV parole program represents one of the few remaining safe, viable pathways to the U.S., allowing up to 30,000 people from the four countries to enter per month, but the plaintiff states have asked the Court to block the program altogether. Although the similar Uniting for Ukraine program has allowed tens of thousands of Ukrainians to parole into the United States for up to two years, the states have not challenged it.