Opinion ID: 733323
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immigration Laws

Text: 31 California has also brought several other statutory claims alleging that the Attorney General has failed to adequately fulfill her obligation to enforce the country's immigration laws, in particular, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(I); 1252(a)(2)(A); 1326; and 1252(c). Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(I) provides that [i]n the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien subject to deportation, the Attorney General shall begin any deportation proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of conviction. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(I). In Count VI, California seeks a declaration and injunctive relief on the basis that the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the INS have violated § 1252(I) by adopting a policy of not commencing deportation proceedings until shortly before convicted illegal aliens are to be released from confinement. 32 Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) provides that the Attorney General shall take into custody any alien convicted of an aggravated felony upon release of the alien [from state custody or supervision]. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A). In Count VI, California seeks a declaration and injunctive relief on the basis that the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the INS violated the terms of this section by failing to take into custody aliens convicted of aggravated felonies upon their release from state incarceration pending determination of deportability. 33 Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326 provides that a person who enters the country illegally after being deported is guilty of a crime. In Count VII, California seeks equitable relief on the basis that the Attorney General has violated this section by prosecuting deported aliens who illegally reenter the country only in cases where the aliens are serious repeat offenders. 34 With respect to sections 1252(I), 1252(a)(2)(A) and 1326, the Court cannot, with propriety, address the issues raised. In Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 838, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1659, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) the Supreme Court held that agency refusals to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings fall within the exception to reviewability provided by [5 U.S.C.] § 701(a)(2) for action 'committed to agency discretion.'  Each of the claims asserted by California under these statutes implicates the institution of enforcement actions of the variety contemplated in Heckler. As the Court noted in Heckler, [a]n agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion. 470 U.S. at 831, 105 S.Ct. at 1655. Accordingly, these issues, having been committed to agency discretion, are not subject to judicial review. While the Supreme Court in Heckler did state in a footnote that a non-enforcement decision might be reviewable where the agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities, Heckler, 470 U.S. at 833 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. at 1656 n. 4, the allegations asserted in the instant Complaint do not rise to a level that would indicate such an abdication. 35 Finally, California seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in Count VIII in the form of a declaration that the Attorney General and Commissioner of the INS have failed to effectively execute final orders of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c). In particular, the State seeks a declaration that the Attorney General has a duty to adopt policies for the administration of § 1252(c) that are consistent with the ruling of this Court. The State seeks as well to enjoin the Attorney General from continuing to implement a policy that allows drop off border deportation for cost transfer and cost saving purposes. 36 Section 1252(c) provides that the Attorney General shall have a period of six months following a final order of deportation to effect the alien's departure from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c). The statute does not define departure or otherwise specify any method of effecting deportation. 37 Because the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the INS reasonably interpret the statute in determining that delivery of an alien to the border effect[s] the alien's departure from the United States, the Court defers to that interpretation. See Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-83, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). For the reasons previously stated concerning agency discretion and the Court's lack of authority to review agency actions as discussed in Heckler, California has failed to state a claim in Count VIII.