FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAUDIO ANAYA ARCE, No. 16-56706 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:16-cv-02419- PSG-MRW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 15, 2018 Pasadena, California Filed August 9, 2018 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion 2 ANAYA ARCE V. UNITED STATES SUMMARY * Immigration The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of Claudio Anaya Arce’s complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages suffered as a result of his removal from the United States in violation of this court’s temporary stay of removal, holding that the district court erred in concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived it of jurisdiction, and remanded. After an immigration judge determined that Anaya had not established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, he filed an emergency petition for review and motion for a stay of removal with this court. Upon filing, the order of removal was temporarily stayed until further order of this court. Despite the issuance of automatic electronic notice of the stay, a faxed copy of the stay from Anaya’s attorney, and calls by his attorney to the deportation officer assigned to the case, the Department of Homeland Security removed him to Mexico where he remained until DHS returned him to the United States pursuant to this court’s order. Anaya sued the United States under the FTCA in district court, raising claims of false arrest and imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The district court dismissed Anaya’s case on the ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived it of jurisdiction. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ANAYA ARCE V. UNITED STATES 3 Section 1252(g) provides, in part, that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of an alien arising from the decision or action by the [Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security] to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” The panel held that a decision or action to violate a court order staying removal falls outside of the jurisdiction- stripping reach of § 1252(g), explaining that Anaya’s claims arise not from the execution of the removal order, but from the violation of the court’s order staying removal. The panel noted that its interpretation is supported by the express instructions of the Supreme Court, this court’s precedent, and common sense, all of which require the court to read the statute narrowly. The panel also noted that, even if it agreed that Anaya’s claims tangentially arise from the execution of the removal order, the court would retain jurisdiction because the agency lacked the authority, and therefore the discretion, to remove Anaya. In this regard, the panel ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals