Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-19-56417/USCOURTS-ca9-19-56417-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AL OTRO LADO, a California

corporation; ABIGAIL DOE; BEATRICE

DOE; CAROLINA DOE; DINORA DOE;

INGRID DOE; JOSE DOE; URSULA DOE;

VICTORIA DOE; BIANCA DOE; JUAN

DOE; ROBERTO DOE; CESAR DOE;

MARIA DOE; EMILIANA DOE,

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, US

Department of Homeland Security;

MARK A. MORGAN, Acting

Commissioner of U.S. Customs and

Border Protection; TODD C. OWEN,

Executive Assistant Commissioner,

Office of Field Operations, United

States Customs and Border

Protection, in his official capacity,

Defendants-Appellants.

No.19-56417

D.C. No.

3:17-cv-02366-

BAS-KSC

ORDER

Filed December 20, 2019

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, Marsha S. Berzon

and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

Case: 19-56417, 12/20/2019, ID: 11540338, DktEntry: 24, Page 1 of 4
2 AL OTRO LADO V. WOLF

Order;

Concurrence by Judge Bress

SUMMARY*

Immigration 

The panel granted the government’s motion for an

emergency temporary stay of the district court’s order

provisionally certifying a class and preliminarily enjoining

enforcement of the Third Country Transit Rule, 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(c)(4), against non-Mexican nationals who were

allegedly in the process of arriving at a port of entry before

the Rule went into effect.

The panel observed that a temporary stay in this context 

(sometimes referred to as an administrative stay) is only

intended to preserve the status quo until the substantive

motion for a stay pending appeal is considered on the merits,

and does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits

of the motion for stay pending appeal. Accordingly, the panel

granted the temporary stay to preserve the status quo,

explaining that the Third Country Transit Rule has been in

effect since July 16, 2016, and prohibiting the government

from applying the Rule to the proposed class members could

cause complications at the border in the period before the

motion for stay pending appeal is decided. 

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 19-56417, 12/20/2019, ID: 11540338, DktEntry: 24, Page 2 of 4
AL OTRO LADO V. WOLF 3

Concurring, Judge Bress wrote that, based on the

standards that apply here, which includes consideration of the

likelihood of success on the merits, the government has

demonstrated that a temporary stay is warranted. 

ORDER

The government requests an emergency temporary stay of

the district court’s order provisionally certifying a class, and

preliminarily enjoining the government from enforcing the

Third Country Transit Rule, 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(4), against

non-Mexican nationals who were allegedly in the process of

arriving at a port of entry before the Third Country Transit

Rule went into effect. The government also seeks a stay of

the district court’s order pending appeal.

A temporary stay in this context (sometimes referred to as

an administrative stay) is only intended to preserve the status

quo until the substantive motion for a stay pending appeal can

be considered on the merits, and does not constitute in any

way a decision as to the merits of the motion for stay pending

appeal.

Because granting the stay request would preserve the

status quo, we grant the government’s motion for a temporary

stay to preserve the status quo pending a decision on the

motion for stay pending appeal.

The Third Country Transit Rule has been in effect since

July 16, 2019. Prohibiting the government from applying

the Rule to the proposed class members could cause

complications at the border in the period before the motion

for stay pending appeal is decided. Our ruling is based on

Case: 19-56417, 12/20/2019, ID: 11540338, DktEntry: 24, Page 3 of 4
4 AL OTRO LADO V. WOLF

these considerations and not in any respect on the merits of

the dispute.

Plaintiffs’ response to the motion for stay pending appeal

is due December 23, 2019, and any government reply is due

December 30, 2019.

The parties are directed to appear for oral argument on the

motion for stay pending appeal on Thursday, January 9, 2020,

at 10:00 am in San Francisco, California. Each side will be

allotted 20 minutes of argument time. The parties are

encouraged to appear in person if possible. If any party

wishes to appear by video, that party must notify Kwame

Copeland, 415.355.7888, no later than Friday, January 3,

2020, and must coordinate with Mr. Copeland in making

suitable arrangements for an appearance by video.

The opening brief and excerpts of record are due January

2, 2020; the answering brief is due January 30, 2020, or

28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is

earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after

service of the answering brief. This case will be assigned to

the next available oral argument panel for a decision on the

merits of the appeal.

BRESS, Circuit Judge, concurring:

Based on the standards that apply here, which includes

consideration of the likelihood of success on the merits, see

Doe #1 v. Trump, No. 19-36020 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019)

(Bress, J., dissenting), the government has demonstrated that

a temporary stay is warranted.

Case: 19-56417, 12/20/2019, ID: 11540338, DktEntry: 24, Page 4 of 4