Yassini v. Crosland, 80-4030

• Decision Date: 29 January 1980
• Docket Number: No. 80-4030,80-4030
• Citation: 613 F.2d 219
• Parties: Abolghasen Osee YASSINI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David CROSLAND et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 219

613 F.2d 219

Abolghasen Osee YASSINI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David CROSLAND et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 80-4030.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 1980.

Peter A. Schey, Bill Ong Hing, Marc Van Der Hout, Nancy Howard, San Francisco, Cal., Jeffrey J. Rummel, San Francisco, Cal., Carolyn P. Blum, International Institute of the East Bay Oakland, Cal., Michael G. W. Lee, Polly A. Weber, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

R. De Saint Phalle, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants- appellees.

Before KENNEDY, HUG and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this action, the named plaintiffs sought a ruling that the Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service could not revoke by directive plaintiffs' June 1, 1980 deferred departure date previously announced by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The complaint contained class allegations. The district court, over plaintiffs' objections, certified a plaintiff class and then dismissed the action. Plaintiffs filed this appeal and sought an injunction pending appeal. Defendants responded and filed a motion for summary affirmance. We deem this appeal appropriate for expedited consideration and by this amended order we dispose of the motion for an injunction and of the appeal.

We vacate both the class certification and the judgment of dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings as to the individual named plaintiffs.

The certification of a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) was improper in the absence of a common question of fact or law presently ripe for judicial determination. To begin with, although the Acting Commissioner's directive purported to deprive every plaintiff of the June departure date, that deprivation had significantly disparate effects. Some of the plaintiffs face immediate deportation unless they initiate administrative or judicial actions. Others merely face the commencement of deportation proceedings. Varied circumstances, no doubt, led individuals to accept the deferred departure date. Moreover, various alternatives or opportunities may have been bypassed in reliance on the deferred departure date. Although the deferred departure date was offered to a large group of Iranian nationals, each recipient had to act personally to take advantage of the offer. Consequently, fact questions unique to each individual would appear to predominate.

Secondly, the common question of law which plaintiffs alleged, and which the court apparently accepted as the basis for certifying the class, was not a question ripe for judicial determination. The named plaintiffs alleged that common to...