Abdi v. McAleenan

• Decision Date: 24 September 2019
• Docket Number: 1:17-CV-00721 EAW
• Citation: 405 F.Supp.3d 467
• Parties: Hanad ABDI and Johan Barrios Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. Kevin MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Thomas Brophy, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Buffalo Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jeffrey Searls, in his official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility; and William Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

405 F.Supp.3d 467

Hanad ABDI and Johan Barrios Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Petitioners,

v.Kevin MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Thomas Brophy, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Buffalo Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jeffrey Searls, in his official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility; and William Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Respondents.

1:17-CV-00721 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed September 24, 2019

Victoria Marie Roeck, Aadhithi Padmanabhan, Antony Philip Falconer Gemmell, Christopher T. Dunn, Paige Austin, Robert Andrew Hodgson, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Deepa Alagesan, Kathryn S. Austin, Mariko Hirose, International Refugee Assistance Project, Heidi Lynne Levine, Michael D. Mann, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioners.

Kevin Charles Hirst, Stacey Ilene Young, J. Max Weintraub, Nicole N. Murley, Tashiba Monique Peoples, U.S. Department of Justice-Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

The instant matter involves a certified subclass of asylum-seekers who have demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture in their respective homelands. Each has been taken into custody and detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Each has been imprisoned in a maximum-security facility for more than six months without a bond hearing while actively seeking admission into the United States.

This Court previously certified the subclass and granted a preliminary injunction requiring that bond hearings be provided to the subclass. See Abdi v. Duke , 280 F. Supp. 3d 373 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) ; Abdi v. Duke , 323 F.R.D. 131 (W.D.N.Y. 2017). At the time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the majority of district courts in the Second Circuit had imposed a temporal limitation on § 1225(b) through the canon of constitutional avoidance. See Abdi , 280 F. Supp. 3d at 390-93. However, the Supreme Court subsequently held that § 1225(b) cannot reasonably be interpreted to require a bond hearing after six months of detention. See Jennings v. Rodriguez , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 830, 842-46, 200 L.Ed.2d 122 (2018). The Supreme Court's decision in Jennings did not address the constitutional arguments raised in that case, and the Supreme Court remanded those issues for the Ninth Circuit to consider in the first instance. See id. at 851.

Pending before the Court are Respondents' motion to vacate this Court's preliminary injunction order (Dkt. 91) and motion to decertify the subclass (Dkt. 102), and Petitioners' motion to enforce the preliminary injunction order (Dkt. 122). These motions directly confront several questions left open in Jennings , including whether asylum-seekers detained pursuant to § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) are entitled to due process protections and, if so, whether the class action device is the appropriate mechanism to resolve Petitioners' due process challenges. Respondents also contend that this Court is without jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1).

Assuming arguendo that the subclass enjoys constitutional protections, the Court concludes that the subclass no longer satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, the subclass must be decertified and the preliminary injunction vacated. The Court need not, and does not, decide whether these asylum-seekers have Fifth Amendment due process rights. See Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439, 445, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988) ("A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them."). Furthermore, in light of this Court's decision to decertify the subclass, Respondents' position that the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief pursuant to § 1252(f)(1) is a moot point and is not addressed.

For the following reasons, Respondents' motion to decertify the subclass (Dkt. 102) is granted. Accordingly, the Court's preliminary injunction order granting class-wide relief in favor of the now decertified subclass is vacated, and Respondents' motion to vacate the preliminary injunction (Dkt. 91) and Petitioners' motion to enforce the preliminary injunction (Dkt. 122) are both denied as moot.

BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Court has issued several decisions relating to the subject matter of this case, familiarity with which is assumed for purposes of this Decision and Order. The Court has summarized the key details below.

I. The Court's Preliminary Injunction

Petitioners Hanad Abdi and Johan Barrios Ramos ("Petitioners") brought this action seeking relief on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated asylum-seekers held at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York. (Dkt. 17). On November 17, 2017, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying Respondents' motion to dismiss and granting Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction. See Abdi , 280 F. Supp. 3d 373. The Court ordered Respondents to immediately adjudicate or readjudicate the parole applications of all members of the putative class of asylum-seekers detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in conformance with their legal obligations, including their obligations under ICE Directive No. 11002.1: Parole of Arriving Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution or Torture (Dec. 8, 2009) (the "ICE Directive"). The Court also ordered Respondents to provide individualized bond hearings to members of the putative subclass who were detained for six months or more, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).¹ In granting the preliminary injunction, the Court concluded "that Petitioners are likely to satisfy the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation." Abdi , 280 F. Supp. 3d at 401 (quotation omitted).

II. The Court's Subsequent Class Certification and Clarification Orders and the Supreme Court's Decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez

Consistent with its findings in granting the preliminary injunction, on December 19, 2017, the Court issued a Decision and Order granting Petitioners' motion for class certification. See Abdi , 323 F.R.D. 131. Specifically, the Court defined the certified subclass as follows:

All arriving asylum-seekers who are or will be detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, have passed a credible fear interview, and have been detained for more than six months without a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

Id. at 145. On January 11, 2018, Respondents filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court's Decision and Order granting the preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 74).

On February 9, 2018, the Court issued another Decision and Order, which clarified the preliminary injunction to require "that once an [immigration judge (‘IJ’) ] has determined that a detainee should be released on bond, he or she must consider the financial circumstances of each subclass member and alternative conditions of release in setting the amount of bond." Abdi v. Nielsen , 287 F. Supp. 3d 327, 345 (W.D.N.Y. 2018). As a result, the Court ordered that "bond hearings must be recalendared and the record reopened" for any subclass member "who remain[ed] detained notwithstanding an IJ's determination that release on bond would be appropriate," so that "alternative conditions of release and the individual's ability to pay" were given consideration. Id. The Court also required Respondents to notify Class Counsel "of the date and location of each bond hearing ... at least five days in advance of the hearing." Id. On February 15, 2018, Respondents filed an amended notice of interlocutory appeal. (Dkt. 84).

On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jennings , which rejected the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (the "INA"), and held that § 1225(b) of the INA could not plausibly be construed to contain an implicit six-month time constraint at which point a bond hearing was statutorily required. 138 S. Ct. at 842-46. In doing so, the Court determined that the canon of constitutional avoidance was not applicable because § 1225(b) mandated "detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded," and "nothing in the statutory text impose[d] any limit on the length of detention." Id. at 842. In other words, because the plain text of § 1225(b) was not amendable to any other plausible construction, the constitutional avoidance canon of statutory interpretation did not apply. See id. at 844. However, the Jennings majority did not address whether the Constitution mandated periodic bond hearings and remanded the case for consideration of these constitutional arguments in the first instance.² See id. at 851.

III. Respondents' Motions to Vacate the Preliminary Injunction and to Decertify the Subclass

On September 5, 2018, the Second Circuit remanded Respondents' appeal for "further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision" in Jennings. (Dkt. 90). On October 31, 2018, Respondents filed a motion to vacate that part of the Court's preliminary injunction that required individualized bond hearings for each subclass member held in immigration detention for six months or longer. (Dkt. 91). Respondents' application is based upon their interpretation of Jennings. (Dkt. 91-1 at 8-11). First, Respondents contend that Jennings suggests that this Court is without jurisdiction to issue class-wide...