UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEWIDE BONDING, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 18-2519 (JEB) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Statewide Bonding, Inc. is unhappy about the current state of immigration bonds for released detainees. It believes that the Department of Homeland Security and its component, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are improperly declaring many of the bonds breached and seeking to collect the posted money from the bonding companies. In a previously filed action, Statewide, other similar companies, and a company executive are seeking to block the Government from declaring further bond breaches. Here, meanwhile, these same Plaintiffs are suing to block the collection of the bonds already in breach, asserting violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and due process, as well as invoking a right to mandamus. As the Court agrees with Defendants’ positions in their current Motion to Dismiss, it will grant the Motion. I. Background In Plaintiffs’ initial suit, No. 18-2115, Statewide; Big Marco Insurance and Bonding Services, LLC; Nexus Services, Inc.; and Nexus executive Mike Donovan allege that the Government is improperly declaring bonds breached when released immigrants fail to appear for 1 court. This is because the Notices to Appear do not “provide the subject immigrant with the time, place, and date where he or she is to appear for immigration proceedings.” Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 18-2115, ECF No. 32 (Second Am. Compl.) at 2. Plaintiffs similarly believe that the Notices to Produce Alien, directed to the bonding companies once an immigrant does not appear, are procedurally flawed. Id. at 15–16. The merits of those contentions are before this Court in that companion case. As Plaintiffs are pursuing a declaratory judgment there that, in the future, the bonds should not be declared in breach, they are simultaneously appealing within DHS the individual determinations that past bonds were in fact breached. The current case asks this Court to freeze collection on those past bond breaches while Plaintiffs administratively appeal. Although they concede that these appeals are untimely, see ECF No. 14 (Am. Compl.) at 3, they contend that the agency’s regulations and constitutional due process require the agency to halt collection while those appeals are pending. Id. at 8–9. Plaintiffs urge that Defendants’ continuing collection activity entitles them to a remedy under the APA and Due Process Clause and mandamus relief. Id. at 11–16. Defendants now move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim under either the APA or Due Process Clause and that mandamus jurisdiction does not exist here. See ECF No. 27 (Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss) at 1–2. II. Legal Standard In evaluating Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court must “treat the complaint’s factual allegations as true . . . and must grant plaintiff ‘the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.’” Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals