Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Baker
Decision Date | 03 December 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 91-2653-CIV.,91-2653-CIV. |
Parties | HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. James BAKER, III, Secretary of State, Rear Admiral Robert Kramek and Admiral Kime, Commandants, United States Coast Guard, Gene McNary, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the United States of America, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban, Kurzban & Weinger, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs.
Dexter Lee, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for defendants.
THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the application of Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., ("HRC"), individual plaintiffs ("individual plaintiffs") (collectively "plaintiffs"), and class members for preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The application asks the court to extend a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting defendants from forcefully repatriating Haitians in their custody either until the merits of the underlying action are resolved or until defendants implement and follow procedural safeguards adequate to ensure that Haitians with bona fide claims of political persecution are not forcefully returned to Haiti. By this application, plaintiffs do not seek entry to this country; rather, they seek only the protection of procedures to ensure that they are not forcefully returned to a country where, on account of their political opinion, their life and liberty are threatened by a brutal and illegitimate military regime.
The court determines that plaintiffs are entitled to the requested injunctive relief for the following reasons, as set forth more fully below. First, plaintiffs have standing and have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of two justiciable, judicially enforceable claims: HRC's right of association and counsel, which arises from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the Haitians plaintiffs' right of non-refoulement, which arises under Article 33 of the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Second, plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial threat that they will suffer irreparable, even fatal, injury if the injunction is not granted. Third, plaintiffs have shown that this threatened injury outweighs the potential harm an injunction would cause defendants. Finally, plaintiffs have shown that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
The facts most relevant to the present inquiry can be summarized as follows. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan formally found that the migration of aliens without visas to the United States was "a serious national problem detrimental to the interests of the United States." Proclamation No. 4865, 46 Fed.Reg. 48,107 (1981), reprinted in 8 U.S.C. ? 1182 note at 993 (1982). Specifically, President Reagan noted that "a particularly difficult aspect of the problem was the continuing illegal migration by sea of large numbers of undocumented aliens into to the southeastern United States." Id. Invoking both his constitutional and statutory authority, he decided that "international cooperation to intercept vessels trafficking in illegal migrants was a necessary and proper means of insuring the effective enforcement of our immigration laws." Id.
To implement this stated policy, on September 29, 1981, President Reagan ordered the Secretary of State to enter into "cooperative arrangements with appropriate foreign governments for the purpose of preventing illegal migration to the United States by sea." Exec.Order No. 12324, 46 Fed.Reg. 48,109 (1981), reprinted in 8 U.S.C. ? 1182 note at 992-93 (1982). The President also ordered the Secretary of Transportation to instruct the Coast Guard to interdict undocumented-alien-carrying vessels of foreign nations with which the United States has a cooperative arrangement authorizing the United States to stop and board such vessels. Id. The Coast Guard was further directed to "return the vessel and its passengers to the country from which it came, when there is reason to believe that an offense is being committed against the United States immigration laws, or appropriate laws of a foreign country with which we have an arrangement to assist." These actions were to be taken only beyond the territorial waters of the United States. Id.
Executive Order 12324 also addressed the unique situation of individuals who might qualify as political refugees, providing that "no person who is a political refugee will be returned without his or her consent." See 8 U.S.C. ? 1101(a)(42) ( ). The Executive Order further ordered the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Transportation, to take any steps necessary "to ensure the fair enforcement of our laws relating to immigration ... and the strict observance of our international obligations concerning those who genuinely flee persecution in their homeland." Exec.Order No. 12324, 46 Fed. Reg. at 48,110.
On September 23, 1981, Haiti and the United States entered into a cooperative arrangement to prevent the illegal migration of visaless aliens to the United States. Interdiction Agreement, Sept. 23, 1981, United States-Haiti, T.I.A.S. No. 10241. The agreement provides, in relevant part, that United States authorities may board Haitian flag vessels on the high seas for the purpose of making certain inquiries relating to the condition and destination of the vessel and the status of those on board. If a violation of a United States law or an appropriate Haitian law is discovered, the vessel and its passengers may be returned to Haiti. The government of Haiti also formally agreed that Haitians returned to that country (with the exception of those organizing the illegal departures) would not be prosecuted for illegal departure. Finally, within this arrangement, as in the Executive Order, the potential political refugee was singled out for differential treatment. The agreement states that it is "understood that ... the United States does not intend to return to Haiti any Haitian migrants whom the United States authorities determine to qualify for refugee status." Id.
To effect the cooperative arrangement with Haiti, officers of the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) were assigned to Coast Guard vessels involved in interdiction operations. The INS also issued Guidelines to govern its conduct during interdiction engagements. The relevant portions of those Guidelines provide as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary
... ... Barr, Attorney General; Immigration ... and Naturalization Service; James Baker, III, Secretary of ... State; Rear Admiral Robert Kramek; Admiral Kime; ... Commandants, United ... Lowenstein Intern. Human Rights Project, New Haven, Conn., Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, Joseph Tringali, Jennifer Klein, Simpson Thacher & ... the Attorney General, in his unreviewable discretion, may decide that a person who is a refugee will not be returned without his consent ... (d) These actions, pursuant to this ... ...
-
Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. Sale
... ... Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, Lucas Guttentag, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civ. Liberties Union, Immigrants' Rights Project, New York City, Robert Rubin, Ignatius Bau, National Refugee Rights Project, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco, ... v. Baker. 3 ... The Government filed an appeal from this Court's April 15, 1992 order ... ...
-
In re Extradition of Atuar
... ... immediately upon ratification of the treaty." Haitian Refugee Center v. Baker, 789 F.Supp. 1552, 1568 ... ...
-
In re the Extradition of Atuar, Miscellaneous No. 5:03-MC-0104 (S.D. W.Va. 12/12/2003)
... ... immediately upon ratification of the treaty." Haitian Refugee Center v. Baker , 789 F. Supp. 1552, 1568 (S.D.Fla ... ...