379 F. Supp. 3d 1170
W.D. Wash.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are a class of detained asylum seekers found to have a credible fear of persecution who seek bond hearings before Immigration Judges (IJs) and challenge EOIR/DHS practices affecting those hearings.
- Plaintiffs allege EOIR routinely delays bond hearings for weeks or months after a request, places the burden of proof on detainees to justify release, does not record hearings or provide verbatim transcripts automatically, and generally fails to issue written, particularized findings at the time of decision.
- These practices, plaintiffs say, cause prolonged, indeterminate detention with attendant physical, psychological, family, and legal harms and impede meaningful appeals.
- Defendants argue plaintiffs lack standing (many named plaintiffs were released), that statutes and precedent (as interpreted) permit current procedures (including placing burden on detainees), and that administrative remedies or resource constraints counsel against judicial intervention.
- The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and the Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale preliminary injunction standard and granted injunctive relief requiring (1) bond hearings within seven days of request, (2) DHS to bear the burden of proof at those hearings, (3) recording/transcripts produced on appeal, and (4) contemporaneous written, particularized findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of bond hearings | EOIR delays hearings weeks/months; due process requires prompt hearings | Resource/docket limits justify delays; administrative remedies available | Court: Bond hearings must occur within 7 days of request; release detainees whose detention exceeds that limit |
| Burden of proof at bond hearings | Government should bear burden to justify detention; civil-release contexts generally place burden on government | Statute/precedent (as read) allows detainees to bear burden; Jennings supports government position | Court: Burden shifted to DHS to prove why detainee should not be released |
| Record and appealability | Denial of automatic recording/transcripts and delayed written findings undermine ability to appeal and appeal notices | No constitutional right to contemporaneous verbatim record; less-intrusive remedies and later findings suffice | Court: Hearings must be recorded and recordings/transcripts produced on appeal; written, particularized findings must be made at conclusion of hearing |
| Standing / mootness / exhaustion | Class representatives may litigate on behalf of injured class members; administrative exhaustion is futile/inadequate | Named plaintiffs released; plaintiffs should exhaust administrative remedies; claims moot | Court: Class action appropriate; prudential exhaustion waived due to inadequacy/futility; injunctive relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (elements for preliminary injunction)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (liberty interest in freedom from indefinite detention)
- Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1992) (limits on burden shifting in civil detention)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (standard of proof in civil commitment)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) (due process in immigration detention; public-interest and Mathews analysis)
- Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless-error discussion in immigration bond context)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale preliminary injunction standard)