338 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Three former unaccompanied alien children (Wilmer Garcia Ramirez, Sulma Hernandez Alfaro, Ana P.) were transferred from ORR (HHS) to ICE (DHS) custody upon turning 18 and placed in adult detention; plaintiffs allege ICE failed to consider "least restrictive" alternatives as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B).
- Plaintiffs sued in a putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel ICE to "consider" statutory factors (danger to self, danger to community, risk of flight) and eligibility for alternatives to detention.
- The court previously granted a preliminary injunction as to two named plaintiffs ordering ICE to comply with § 1232(c)(2)(B) and to memorialize assessments; after that order ICE reconsidered and released at least one plaintiff to alternatives.
- Defendants moved to dismiss arguing lack of standing, mootness, non-reviewability under the APA, lack of final agency action, and failure to state a claim; plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss and granted class certification for the Rule 23(b)(2) class defined as all former unaccompanied alien children detained by ICE after transfer from ORR at age 18 and as to whom ICE did not consider least-restrictive placements per § 1232(c)(2)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Plaintiffs lost the opportunity to be considered under § 1232(c)(2)(B) — a cognizable, concrete procedural/informational injury | No cognizable injury because either mandatory detention or flight-risk findings foreclose consideration; plaintiffs merely seek discretionary relief | Court: Plaintiffs have standing — lost opportunity to be considered is a cognizable, concrete, particularized, redressable injury |
| Mootness | Claims were live when filed; class action fits inherently transitory exception so later releases do not moot class claims | Named plaintiffs' later release and ICE post-suit consideration moots claims | Court: Not moot at filing; inherently transitory exception applies so case may proceed as class action |
| Reviewability under APA | § 1232(c)(2)(B) imposes a discrete, reviewable duty to "consider" specified factors; relief sought is order to compel consideration, not to dictate ultimate placement | Immigration detention and discretionary placement decisions are committed to agency discretion and/or statutorily unreviewable; bond hearings provide adequate alternative remedy | Court: APA review available — statute supplies meaningful standards and no clear preclusion; bond hearings are not an adequate alternative |
| Class certification (Rule 23) | Systemic refusal to consider § 1232(c)(2)(B) creates common question; injunctive/declaratory relief appropriate for (b)(2) class | Class lacks commonality/typicality; class definition is administratively infeasible or "fail-safe"; individualized determinations preclude (b)(2) relief | Court: Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) satisfied — numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy met; class certified to compel statutory consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts' jurisdictional limits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (concrete and particularized injury requirement)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (§706(1) claims require discrete mandatory agency duty)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final agency action test: consummation and legal consequences)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requirement for class certification)