Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16617&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:04:06+00:00

Document:
On May 27, 2018, immigrant detainees who had been held for more than six months without a bond hearing while adjudication of their removal decisions was in process, petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus; they also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Represented by Centro Legal de la Raza, the American Civil Liberties Union of California, and private counsel, the plaintiffs brought this class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2241, and 1651.
The named plaintiffs are San Francisco Bay area fathers who were arrested by ICE in fall 2017 and were detained for over six months in ICE custody without a bond hearing. In their cases, the government was prohibited from deporting them because an Asylum Officer found that they each had a “reasonable fear of persecution.” Consequently, they had live claims in the Immigration Court and were fighting deportation in “withholding only” proceedings. Both had moved for bond hearings in their cases before the Immigration Court which were denied for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs sought a court order requiring that defendants provide individualized bond hearings before an Immigration Judge after 180 days of detention and every 180 days thereafter if denied. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that failure to provide such a hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the statutory requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 5 U.S.C. § 703. Once filed, the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
On April 12, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of “all individuals who are detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) in the Ninth Circuit by, or pursuant to the authority of, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and who have reached or will reach six months in detention, and have been or will be denied a prolonged detention bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.” The class was defined to exclude classes of similarly-situated individuals involved in other litigation, such as Rodriguez v. Hayes, available here in this Clearinghouse and which reached the Supreme Court as Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018). The relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), authorizes the detention of individuals with final orders of removal. However, the plaintiffs in this case challenged their removal orders and, as a result, the government was prohibited from deporting them. On the same date, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from continuing to detain class members for over 180 days without a bond hearing.
The defendants filed their opposition to these motions on May 3, 2018. The parties’ primary disagreement related to whether the Supreme Court decision in Jennings had effectively overturned Ninth Circuit precedent on this issue. Specifically, the Plaintiffs relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Diouf II which held that an individual facing prolonged detention (i.e., over 180 days) under 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(6) “is entitled to release on bond unless the government establishes that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community.” Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011). The plaintiffs filed their reply on May 17, 2018.
On June 5, 2018, Judge Corley found that Jennings did not overrule Diouf II and that they were not irreconcilable. She granted a preliminary injunction and class certification so that people who have been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) with “live claims” (i.e., before the Immigration Court, Board of Immigration Appeals, or a circuit court of appeals) cannot be held by the government for more than 180 days without a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. At these hearings, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would bear the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that prolonged detention was warranted (i.e., that a detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community). According to the ACLU, the ruling is expected to affect hundreds of people detained throughout the Ninth Circuit. According to Centro Legal de la Raza, this order does not extend to arriving aliens held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) or mandatory detainees held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
On July 20, 2018, Judge Corley issued an order clarifying her June 5, 2018 in response to a motion for clarification filed by the defendants on June 20, 2018. She ordered that the preliminary injunction applied only to immigration detainees who have “live claims” before an adjudicative body, and not to any detainee held in ICE custody for over 180 days.
On August 3, 2018, the defendants appealed the class certification and injunction to the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff Description Noncitizens detained in the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) pending a determination as to whether they can remain in the United States.

References: § 703
 § 1231
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1231
 v. 
 § 1231
 § 1225
 § 1226
 § 1231