Xochitl Hernandez v. Jefferson Sessions

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XOCHITL HERNANDEZ, for No. 16-56829 themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals; D.C. No. CESAR MATIAS, for themselves and 5:16-cv-00620- on behalf of a class of similarly- JGB-KK situated individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, OPINION v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; JAMES MCHENRY, Acting Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review; ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; THOMAS D. HOMAN, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); DAVID JENNINGS, Los Angeles Field Office Director of ICE; JAMES JANECKA, Warden, Adelanto Detention Facility; CHRISTINA HOLLAND, Jail Administrator, Santa Ana City Jail; CARLOS ROJA, Chief, Santa Ana City Department; JON BRIGGS, Captain, Orange County Sheriff’s Department; MIKE KREUGER, Captain, Orange County Sheriff’s 2 HERNANDEZ V. SESSIONS Department; SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff, Orange County, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 11, 2017 Pasadena, California Filed October 2, 2017 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Reinhardt; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Fernandez HERNANDEZ V. SESSIONS 3 SUMMARY * Immigration The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs, a class of non- citizens in removal proceedings who are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in the Central District of California and are unable to afford the bond set by immigration officials. The panel held that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(e) and 1252(a)(2)(B), which restrict judicial review of certain discretionary immigration decisions, did not bar jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ claim that the discretionary process itself is constitutionally flawed. The panel also held that the district court did not err in waiving the prudential requirement that Plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring immigration officials when making bond determinations to, inter alia, consider (1) financial ability to obtain bond and (2) alternative conditions of release. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Fernandez agreed that the government must consider financial ability and alternative conditions of supervision, a requirement he found to be essentially prohibitory. However, Judge Fernandez dissented as to the breadth of the injunction with respect to its mandatory terms requiring the * 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 HERNANDEZ V. SESSIONS government to conduct new bond hearings within 45 days for those who are currently detained and requiring the government to consult with class counsel to develop and agree to guidelines. COUNSEL Sherease Rosalyn Pratt (argued), Joseph Hardy, and Adrienne Zack, Trial Attorneys; Colin A. Kisor, Deputy Director; William C. Peachey, Director; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants. Michael Kaufman (argued) and Ahilan T. Arulanantham, ACLU ...

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