United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 16, 2020 Decided November 10, 2020 No. 19-5178 STATEWIDE BONDING, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DHS, ET AL., APPELLEES Consolidated with 19-5342, 19-5364 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:18-cv-02519) (No. 1:18-cv-02115) (No. 1:19-cv-02083) Dallas S. LePierre, pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellants. On the briefs was Mario Williams. John M. Shoreman entered an appearance. Matthew J. Glover, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Abby C. Wright, 2 Attorney, and Beth E. Cook, Associate Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Alan Burch and Rhonda L. Campbell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, entered appearances. Before: HENDERSON and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: In late 2018, the plaintiffs—two bail-bond companies, a corporation guaranteeing immigration applicants’ compliance with immigration bonds and that corporation’s CEO (collectively, Statewide)—filed three separate lawsuits against the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other government entities.1 They assert that certain aspects of DHS’s current administration of the immigration-bond system violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Statewide’s right to due process under the United States Constitution. See Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. DHS, No. 18-cv-2519, 2019 WL 2076762 (D.D.C. May 10, 2019) (Statewide I) (challenge to DHS’s collection activities on bonds as to which Statewide has filed untimely appeals); Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. DHS, 422 F. Supp. 3d 42 (D.D.C. 2019) (Statewide II) (challenge to DHS’s alleged policy or practice of determining bond breach following issuance of purportedly defective Notices To Appear (NTAs) and Notices to Produce Alien (NPAs)); Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. DHS, 422 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D.D.C. 2019) 1 The defendants in this consolidated appeal are: DHS; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the United States of America; U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS); Acting Secretary of DHS, Chad F. Wolf; Attorney General William P. Barr; Acting Director of ICE, Matthew T. Albence; Associate Legal Advisor, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor of ICE, Jody M. Prescott; and former DHS Secretary, Kirstjen M. Nielsen. 3 (Statewide III) (challenge to DHS’s rejection of bond breach determination appeals as untimely when mailed before, but received after, appeal deadline). In three separate decisions, the district court dismissed all of Statewide’s claims primarily because DHS has afforded Statewide constitutionally sufficient process and because the challenged DHS actions are consistent with the applicable regulations. We affirm all three district court dismissals in this consolidated appeal. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutes and Regulations ICE, a DHS component, is responsible for overseeing immigration detention and for carrying out removal orders. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1357. ICE may release certain immigrant applicants from detention while removal proceedings are ongoing. 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c). In exercising this authority, ICE may require the posting of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals