872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), 16-56829, Hernandez v. Sessions
|Citation:||872 F.3d 976|
|Opinion Judge:||REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:|
|Party Name:||XOCHITL HERNANDEZ, for themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals; CESAR MATIAS, for themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; JAMES MCHENRY, Acting Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review; ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting S|
|Attorney:||Sherease Rosalyn Pratt (argued), Joseph Hardy, and Adrienne Zack, Trial Attorneys; Colin A. Kisor, Deputy Director; William C. Peachey, Director; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Reinhardt; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Fernandez. FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge|
|Case Date:||October 02, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction for a class of non-citizens in removal proceedings who are detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). In this case, the government has already determined that the class members were neither dangerous nor enough of a flight risk to require detention without bond. Nonetheless, the class members remain detained because... (see full summary)
Argued and Submitted July 11, 2017 Pasadena, California.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 5:16-cv-00620-JGB-KK. Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding.
Aroche v. Park, (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2017)
The panel affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs, a class of non-citizens in removal proceedings who are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in the Central District of California and are unable to afford the bond set by immigration officials.
The panel held that 8 U.S.C. § § 1226(e) and 1252(a)(2)(B), which restrict judicial review of certain discretionary immigration decisions, did not bar jurisdiction of Plaintiffs' claim that the discretionary process itself is constitutionally flawed. The panel also held that the district court did not err in waiving the prudential requirement that Plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring immigration officials when making bond determinations to, inter alia, consider (1) financial ability to obtain bond and (2) alternative conditions of release.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Fernandez agreed that the government must consider financial ability and alternative conditions of supervision, a requirement he found to be essentially prohibitory. However, Judge Fernandez dissented as to the breadth of the injunction with respect to its mandatory terms requiring the government to conduct new bond hearings within 45 days for those who are currently detained and requiring the government to consult with class counsel to develop and agree to guidelines.
Sherease Rosalyn Pratt (argued), Joseph Hardy, and Adrienne Zack, Trial Attorneys; Colin A. Kisor, Deputy Director; William C. Peachey, Director; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.
Michael Kaufman (argued) and Ahilan T. Arulanantham, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Michael Tan and Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, New York, New York; Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, San Francisco, California; Matthew E. Sloan, Douglas A. Smith, Devon L. Hein, Matthew E. Delgado, Michael D. Hidalgo, and John C. Korevec, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
John L. Ewald, Kelly M. Daley, Jasmine M. Owens, and Ned Hirschfeld, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, New York; Linda Klein, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois; for Amicus Curiae American Bar Association.
Alan E. Schoenfeld, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Leon T. Kenworthy and Webb Lyons, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Nine Retired Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members.
Peter R. Afrasiabi and Oscar M. Orozco-Botello, Newport Beach, California; Anne Lai, University of California, Irvine School of Law--Immigrant Rights Clinic, Irvine, California; for Amici Curiae University of California, Irvine School of Law--Immigrant Rights Clinic; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Los Angeles; Brandeis Human Rights Advocacy Program; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Columbia Law School Immigrants' Rights Clinic; Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Cornell Law School's Asylum and Convention Against Torture Appellate Clinic; Council on American-Islamic Relations; Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Los Angeles; Las Crisantemas; Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic; National Day Laborer Organizing Network; New York Law School, Safe Passage Project Clinical Class; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project; Public Counsel; Rapid Response Network; Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project; University of California Davis School of Law Immigration Law Clinic; University of California, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic; University of Colorado Criminal/Immigration Defense Clinic; University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Immigration Clinic; and Western State College of Law Immigration Clinic.
Peter H. Kang, Sidley Austin LLP, Palo Alto, California; Sue Wang, Kelly A. Rosencrans, and Alex Baxter, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California; Jayashri Srikantiah, Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Stanford Law School, Stanford, California; for Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices.
Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judge:
" Courts have confronted, in diverse settings, the age-old problem of providing equal justice for poor and rich, weak and powerful alike." 1 In this case, we reaffirm our commitment to this principle of fairness for all as embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Here, it prohibits our government from discriminating against the poor in providing access to fundamental rights, including the freedom from physical restraints on individual liberty.
Deprivations of physical liberty are a pervasive feature of our current system of immigration enforcement. While the temporary detention of non-citizens may sometimes be justified by concerns about public safety or flight risk, the government's discretion to incarcerate non-citizens is always constrained by the requirements of due process: no person may be imprisoned merely on account of his poverty.2
In the present case, the government appeals from the district court's order entering a class-wide preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs, a class of non-citizens in removal proceedings who are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in the Central District of California. The government has already determined that the class members are neither dangerous nor enough of a flight risk to require detention without bond.3 The class members nonetheless remain detained because they are unable to afford bond in the amount set by the immigration officials.
Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief in the district court against the government's policy of failing to require immigration officials to consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release at bond hearings. Plaintiffs argued that the policy violated their constitutional and statutory rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).4
The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring immigration officials when making bond determinations to, inter alia, consider (1) financial ability to obtain bond and (2) alternative conditions of release. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction, we affirm.
Plaintiffs are a class of non-citizens detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on a bond set by a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)5 official or an Immigration Judge (IJ) in the Central District of California. Under § 1226(a), the Attorney General has " general, discretionary" authority to detain a non-citizen " pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States." Casas-Castrillon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). Section 1226(a) also authorizes the Attorney General, in his discretion, to release these non-citizen detainees " on bond of at least $1,500" or " conditional parole." 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2).
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP