18‐1597 Ragbir v. Homan 1 In the 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 For the Second Circuit 4 5 6 August Term, 2018 7 No. 18‐1597 8 9 RAVIDATH LAWRENCE RAGBIR, NEW SANCTUARY COALITION OF NEW 10 YORK CITY, CASA DE MARYLAND, INC., DETENTION WATCH 11 NETWORK, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL 12 LAWYERS GUILD, NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION, 13 Plaintiffs‐Appellants, 14 15 v. 16 17 THOMAS D. HOMAN, in his official capacity as Deputy Director and 18 Senior Official Performing the duties of the Director of U.S. 19 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, THOMAS DECKER, in his 20 official capacity as New York Field Office Director for U.S. 21 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, SCOTT MECHKOWSKI, in his 22 official capacity as Assistant New York Field Office Director for U.S. 23 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, UNITED STATES 24 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, 25 in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, 26 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WILLIAM P. 27 BARR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United 28 States, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 29 Defendants‐Appellees. 30 31 1 Appeal from the United States District Court 2 for the Southern District of New York. 3 No. 18‐cv‐1159 — P. Kevin Castel, Judge. 4 5 6 ARGUED: OCTOBER 29, 2018 7 DECIDED: APRIL 25, 2019 8 9 Before: WALKER, LEVAL, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. 10 11 12 Ravidath Ragbir, an alien subject to a final order of removal, 13 together with several immigration‐policy advocacy organizations, 14 appeals from an interlocutory order of the United States District 15 Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.) denying their 16 motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing certain of their 17 claims. Plaintiffs‐Appellants sought to enjoin Ragbir’s imminent 18 deportation on the basis of evidence that Government officials 19 targeted him for deportation because of his public speech that was 20 critical of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. 21 immigration policy. The district court held that Ragbir failed to state 22 a cognizable claim to the extent that he sought to enjoin his 23 deportation and that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprives federal courts of 24 jurisdiction over that claim. We conclude that Ragbir states such a 25 claim, that the Suspension Clause of the Constitution requires the 26 availability of a habeas corpus proceeding in light of § 1252(g), and 27 thus, that the district court had jurisdiction over Ragbir’s claim. 28 Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order, and REMAND 29 to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 30 opinion. 31 32 Judge WALKER dissents in a separate opinion. 2 1 2 3 ROBERT STANTON JONES, Arnold & 4 Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 5 Washington, DC (William C. Perdue, 6 Sally L. Pei, Andrew T. Tutt, Arnold 7 & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 8 Washington, DC; Emily Newhouse 9 Dillingham, Arnold & Porter Kaye 10 Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL; Ada Añon, 11 Arnold & ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals