307 F.R.D. 539
W.D. Wash.2015Background
- Plaintiff Rivera, a Honduran national, was detained under INA 236(a) after entering the U.S. in May 2014.
- Initial bond was set at $7,500; IJ later reduced to $3,500 but Rivera remained detained for five months.
- Rivera was granted asylum in October 2014 and released; her BIA appeal continued pending.
- Rivera filed a class action on October 16, 2014 seeking habeas relief, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging conditional-parole denial as applied by IJs in Seattle and Tacoma.
- Parties disputed whether IJs may grant conditional parole under § 236(a); both sides moved for summary judgment.
- Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and ultimately granted summary judgment in Rivera’s favor, while denying stay and defendants’ summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge bond hearings | Rivera has procedural injury from defective bond hearing. | Standing not satisfied due to duration of detention and lack of redress. | Court found standing based on procedural injury and redressability under immigration bond hearing context. |
| Mootness and relation back for class certification | Class claims remain live for relief for class members; inherently transitory. | Mootness defeats class relief if no live controversy for plaintiffs. | The action remains maintainable; relation back applies; claims considered capable of repetition yet evading review. |
| Class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) | Uniform policy affects all detained under 1226(a) eligible for bond; class-wide relief appropriate. | Class should be narrowed and some members lack standing. | Class certified for those detained or detained-after-bond hearings with inability to pay; injunctive relief appropriate. |
| Exhaustion requirement | Exhaustion prudentially waived; BIA decision not necessary to resolve legal issue. | Exhaustion required and not excused. | Exhaustion waived; court may proceed on purely legal question. |
| Stay and Chevron deference to BIA Vicente-Garcia | No stay; statutory text unambiguous; no need to defer to BIA. | Stay pending Vicente-Garcia to allow BIA ruling. | Court declines stay; § 1226(a) deemed unambiguous; rejects Chevron deferential approach here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (S. Ct. 1992) (standing elements essential to Article III)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (S. Ct. 2007) (procedural rights need only show plausible injury)
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014) (procedural rights framework for standing)
- Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing and redressability in environmental context)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (rigorous analysis for Rule 23 class certification)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (merits-related considerations permissible in 23(a) analysis)
- Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2009) (habeas review of bond hearings and due process)
- Casas-Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) (need for bond hearings to prevent prolonged detention)
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (habeas review and due process in bond hearings)
- Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (detention authority and review under INA)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (S. Ct. 2001) (six-month presumptive detention period for removal)