Ignacio Lanuza v. Jonathan Love
899 F.3d 1019
9th Cir.2018Background
- Ignacio Lanuza, a long-term U.S. resident with a U.S. citizen wife and children, was placed in removal proceedings and was prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
- At a 2009 hearing, ICE Assistant Chief Counsel Jonathan Love submitted an I-826 form purportedly signed by Lanuza in 2000 accepting voluntary departure; that form, if genuine, rendered Lanuza ineligible for cancellation.
- Based solely on the I-826, an immigration judge ordered Lanuza removed; the BIA later affirmed. New counsel discovered the I-826 was forged (forensic report showed the form referenced DHS, an agency not in existence in 2000), and the BIA reopened the case; Lanuza’s status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident in 2014.
- Love was criminally prosecuted, pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for deprivation of rights, was sentenced and ordered to pay $12,000 restitution to Lanuza.
- Lanuza sued Love and the United States seeking Bivens damages for violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights; the district court dismissed the Bivens claim but denied qualified immunity; Lanuza appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens damages are available for an immigration attorney’s submission of forged evidence that barred access to statutory relief | Lanuza: Bivens should extend here because an officer’s deliberate submission of forged evidence violated due process and no adequate alternative remedy exists | Gov: Abbasi and Mirmehdi counsel hesitation; immigration context and INA remedial scheme preclude implying Bivens | Court: Bivens remedy available in this narrow context; special factors do not preclude relief |
| Whether this case presents a "new context" under Abbasi | Lanuza: While novel in immigration setting, analogous to other due-process/falsified-evidence cases and not like high-level policy cases | Gov: Any Bivens expansion in immigration is barred by Mirmehdi and Abbasi’s limits | Court: The claim arises in a new context but that alone does not bar relief; must assess special factors |
| Whether "special factors counselling hesitation" under Abbasi preclude Bivens here | Lanuza: No special factors—low-level actor, no national security/diplomacy concern, no adequate alternative, and Congress has not foreclosed damages | Gov: Allowing suit would intrude on immigration policy and duplicate INA/other remedies; criminal prosecution and restitution are adequate alternatives | Court: Special factors do not counsel hesitation; judiciary is suited to provide remedy for deliberate forgery by an immigration attorney |
| Whether Love is protected by qualified immunity | Lanuza: Love intentionally submitted forged evidence; clearly established that such conduct violates due process | Love: (argued qualified immunity and statute of limitations) | Court: Qualified immunity not available; reasonable official would know forging/submitting false evidence in proceedings is unlawful; claim timely under accrual principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (framework limiting expansion of Bivens; new-context and special-factors analysis)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens remedy available under Fifth Amendment in employment-related gender discrimination)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens damages in Eighth Amendment prisoner medical-treatment context)
- Mirmehdi v. United States, 689 F.3d 975 (9th Cir.) (declining Bivens extension for national-security-related immigration detention; distinguished here)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (use of known false evidence violates due process)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (distinction between prosecutorial functions entitled to absolute immunity and investigative acts that are not)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and context for Bivens limitations)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (courts may withhold Bivens where Congress provided a comprehensive remedial scheme)