Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16617&search=source%7Cgeneral%3BattyOrg%7C3%3Borderby%7CfilingYear%3B
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 04:36:01
Document Index: 395046976

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1101', '§ 703', '§ 1231', '§ 1225', '§ 1226', '§ 1231', '§ 1231']

On May 27, 2018, immigrant detainees who had been held for more than six months without a bond hearing during the pendency of their removal proceedings petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus; they also sought declaratory and injunctive ... read more >
On May 27, 2018, immigrant detainees who had been held for more than six months without a bond hearing during the pendency of their removal proceedings 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 were San Francisco Bay area fathers who had been arrested by ICE in fall 2017 and were subsequently detained for over six months without a bond hearing. 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. They had also moved for bond hearings in their cases before the Immigration Court, but their motions were denied for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs sought a court order requiring that the 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 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). 325 F.R.D. 616.
On August 3, 2018, the defendants appealed the class certification and injunction to the Ninth Circuit (docket no. 18-16465).
On November 16, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court requesting enforcement of the court's June 5 order as to class members transferred to detention facilities outside of the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs claimed that, as class members, they are entitled to the protection of the court's order. Defendants argued that upon transfer outside the Ninth Circuit they are no longer class members and no longer entitled to prolonged detention bond hearings after 180 days.
On January 25, 2019, Judge Corley denied the plaintiffs' motion. In her order, she explained that the plaintiffs' reading of the certified class was too broad to embrace class members transferred outside of the Ninth Circuit, and that the plaintiffs had not shown that the defendants had otherwise failed to comply with the June 5 order. 2019 WL 330466.
On April 7, 2020 the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's June 5, 2018 order. The Court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that § 1231(a)(6) requires the government to provide class members with an individualized bond hearing in accordance with Diouf II. It also agreed that Diouf II was not clearly irreconcilable with Jennings and that the burden was on the government to show that a detained class member was a flight risk or a danger in order to continue holding them without violating due process. 2020 WL 1684034.
Sam Kulhanek - 04/10/2020
Plaintiff Description 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, 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
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 73] (2020 WL 1684034)
IM-CA-0120-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
IM-CA-0120-0004
Ramos, Carolina Martin (California) show/hide docs
Sinodis, John Nicholas (California) show/hide docs