Alejandro Rodriguez v. Timothy Robbins

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, for himself Nos. 13-56706 and on behalf of a class of similarly- 13-56755 situated individuals; ABDIRIZAK ADEN FARAH, for himself and on D.C. No. behalf of a class of similarly-situated 2:07-cv-03239- individuals; JOSE FARIAS CORNEJO; TJH-RNB YUSSUF ABDIKADIR; ABEL PEREZ RUELAS, Petitioners-Appellees/ ORDER Cross-Appellants, and EFREN OROZCO, Petitioner, v. DAVID JENNINGS, ∗ Field Office Director, Los Angeles District, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, Homeland Security; JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney ∗ David Jennings, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Jefferson B. Sessions III, and James McHenry are substituted in place of their predecessors. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). 2 RODRIGUEZ V. JENNINGS General; WESLEY LEE, Assistant Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; RODNEY PENNER, Captain, Mira Loma Detention Center; SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff of Orange County; NGUYEN, Officer, Officer- in-Charge, Theo Lacy Facility; DAVIS NIGHSWONGER, Captain, Commander, Theo Lacy Facility; MIKE KREUGER, Captain, Operations Manager, James A. Musick Facility; ARTHUR EDWARDS, Officer-in- Charge, Santa Ana City Jail; RUSSELL DAVIS, Jail Administrator, Santa Ana City Jail; JAMES MCHENRY, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Respondents-Appellants. Filed April 12, 2018 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges, and Sam E. Haddon,** District Judge. Order ** The Honorable Sam E. Haddon, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. RODRIGUEZ V. JENNINGS 3 SUMMARY *** Immigration The panel directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on the following procedural questions: (1) whether this Court has jurisdiction over petitioners’ constitutional claims despite 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), and if not, whether the Court may nonetheless issue declaratory relief for the Rule 23(b)(2) class; (2) whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action continues to be the appropriate vehicle for petitioners’ claims in light of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011); and (3) whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action litigated on common facts is an appropriate way to resolve petitioners’ claims. The panel directed that the supplemental briefs should also address the following constitutional questions: (1) whether the Constitution requires that aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 RODRIGUEZ V. JENNINGS hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts more than six months; (2) whether the Constitution requires that criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under U.S.C. § 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts more than six months; and (3) whether the Constitution requires that, in bond hearings for aliens detained for more than six months under §§ 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals