Opinion ID: 754792
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Enjoining Deportation

Text: 84 Although the government does not contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, it nevertheless argues that the injunction's prohibition against the future deportation of aliens who received inadequate notice is invalid under IIRIRA. With IIRIRA, Congress provided that 85 [e]xcept as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act. 86 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). On the basis of this jurisdiction-limiting statute, the government contends that the district court did not have jurisdiction to order any relief that interferes with its attempt to execute deportation orders against the class members. We reject this contention. 87 As we noted above, the government does not assert that the district court was without jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by the plaintiffs, nor could it. By its terms, the statutory provision relied upon by the government does not prevent the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' due process claims. Those claims do not arise from a decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien, but instead constitute general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency. 15 McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 492, 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991). 88 Further, this is not a case in which the plaintiffs have asserted a constitutional challenge in order to conceal the true nature of their claims. See Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v. Reno, 134 F.3d 921, 927 (9th Cir.1997). Their objective was not to obtain judicial review of the merits of their INS proceedings, but rather to enforce their constitutional rights to due process in the context of those proceedings. They have not raised a constitutional challenge to any of the substantive factors used by the government in determining whether to charge someone with document fraud, nor have they made any allegations as to the merits of the decision to execute removal orders against them, except to the extent necessary to substantiate their due process claims. Although the constitutional violations ultimately may have led to the plaintiffs' erroneous deportation, the resulting removal orders were simply a consequence of the violations, not the basis of the claims. Moreover, if the plaintiffs prevail on their claims, they will not be entitled to any substantive benefits; rather, they will only be entitled to reopen their proceedings. See McNary, 498 U.S. at 495, 111 S.Ct. 888. 89 We are also mindful that where possible, jurisdiction-limiting statutes should be interpreted to preserve the authority of the courts to consider constitutional claims. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 119 F.3d 1367, 1372 (9th Cir.1997). And we reiterate that any legislation that completely immunizes an agency's practices and procedures from due process challenges would raise difficult constitutional issues. Catholic Soc. Servs., 134 F.3d at 927; see also Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977) (noting that when constitutional questions are in issue, the availability of judicial review is presumed, and we will not read a statutory scheme to take the 'extraordinary' step of foreclosing jurisdiction unless Congress' intent to do so is manifested by 'clear and convincing' evidence) (quoting Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 762, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975)). In light of these concerns, we conclude that the statute does not impose a jurisdictional bar to the plaintiffs' claims or the relief the district court awarded. 90 Because the district court clearly had jurisdiction to hear the claims regarding constitutional violations in the context of the document fraud proceedings, it had jurisdiction to order adequate remedial measures, including injunctive provisions that ensure that the effects of the violation do not continue.