306 F. Supp. 3d 1147
C.D. Cal.2018Background
- Ninety-two Cambodian lawful permanent residents (subset of ~1,900 putative class members) were detained by ICE in October 2017 after decades living in the U.S. under prior orders of removal that could not previously be executed because Cambodia would not accept repatriation.
- Petitioners allege they were detained without adequate notice, transported between facilities, and impeded from accessing counsel or immigration files necessary to file motions to reopen; some faced allegedly abusive detention conditions and reported extortion by Cambodian officials.
- Changes in law (e.g., Padilla, Judulang) and individual developments (pardon, certificates of rehabilitation) may provide grounds to reopen decades-old removal orders.
- Petitioners sought a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction to stay deportations until Feb 5, 2018 to permit filing motions to reopen and, if filed, to preserve time for administrative adjudication and appeals.
- The government argued the REAL ID Act strips district court jurisdiction over these claims and urged denial; Petitioners argued they seek only procedural relief (a chance to reopen), not direct review of removal orders.
- The court granted the preliminary injunction for the subset of 92 detainees, holding district court jurisdiction exists and that due process required a limited stay to allow motions to reopen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under REAL ID Act | Petitioners seek only procedural relief (time to file motions to reopen); REAL ID does not bar district court jurisdiction over collateral due-process claims | REAL ID Act (8 U.S.C. §1252) precludes district courts from adjudicating claims that arise from removal orders | Court: District court has jurisdiction; REAL ID does not bar these collateral due-process claims (citing Ninth Circuit precedent) |
| Whether due process requires a stay to file motions to reopen | Abrupt detention, lack of notice, restricted counsel access, and changed law/circumstances create high risk of erroneous deportation; due process entitles them to a meaningful opportunity to reopen | Government says administrative remedies were available earlier and a stay would unduly delay removals and burden removal process | Court: Likely success on merits; Mathews balancing favors Petitioners — due process requires time to file and adjudicate motions to reopen before removal |
| Irreparable harm / balance of equities / public interest | Deportation implicates fundamental liberty interests and constitutes irreparable injury; government interest is minimal delay | Government asserts harm to removal process, potential logistical burdens | Court: Irreparable harm established; equities and public interest favor injunction |
| Scope of preliminary injunction for putative class members / motions to withdraw | Petitioners: injunction may protect putative class members imminently facing deportation; some detainees asked to be excluded | Government: injunction affecting putative class members should await class certification; movants seek removal so should be excluded | Court: Preliminary injunction may extend to the 92 detainees subject to travel orders; motions to withdraw granted for those in that subset who affirmatively want exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (establishes standard for preliminary injunction requiring likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (serious questions plus balance tipping sharply can support preliminary injunction)
- Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969 (district court jurisdiction permitted for collateral claims seeking procedural opportunity to seek review)
- Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (§1252(g) does not bar district court jurisdiction over collateral due-process challenges to agency procedures)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Mathews balancing test for what process is due)
- Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (BIA's prior approach to §212(c) relief invalidated; expanded reopening possibilities)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise about deportation consequences of guilty pleas; basis for challenging old pleas)
- Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (deportation implicates fundamental liberty interests)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (irreparable injury where constitutional rights are at stake supports preliminary injunction)
- Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719 (limits on injunctive relief after class-certification denial; distinguished here)
- Hamama v. Adducci, 261 F. Supp. 3d 820 (district court injunction to preserve ability to seek reopening where sudden detentions impeded access to counsel)