Case: Pineda v. Trump

On November 1, 2018, a group of citizens from Honduras who had been traveling with their children to the United States to seek asylum filed this putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on behalf of themselves and their children. The case was assigned to Judge Christopher R. Cooper. The plaintiffs, represented by Nexus Derechos Humanos Attorneys and private counsel, sued President Trump and all federal agencies associated with immigration under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Plaintiffs sought class certification as “All persons (1) who are Mexican, Central American, or South American citizens (2) who are traveling to the United States or have attempted entry into the United States, whether at a designated port of entry or not, since October 31, 2018, and (3) who are seeking asylum or intending to seek asylum within the United States.”

The Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgement that the Defendants had violated the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and that the Defendants had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by disregarding federal law, federal directives, and the Flores Settlement Agreement, as well as injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of Trump’s immigration policy. While asserting without evidence that the migrant caravan contained “many criminals” and “many gang members” and labeling the caravan “an invasion of our Country,” President Trump implemented a policy that would permanently detain the thousands of caravaners planning to seek asylum in the United States.

Generally there are three possible designation for an aliens in the United States:

1. “You are an arriving alien” upon entering the United States.

2. “You are an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.”

3. “You have been admitted to the United States, but are removable for the reasons stated below.”

The Plaintiffs argued that this “no release” policy was being used to deter asylum seekers, and that the use of detention as a deterrent to asylum seekers violated their Due Process rights. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs argued that denying immigrants any opportunity to challenge their inclusion in an immigrant category that prohibits them from seeking bond and release from detention violated their Due Process rights. Lastly, the Plaintiffs claimed that Trump and the federal agencies violated the Administrative Procedures Act by disregarding several laws and an agreement related to immigration, including the following:

1. 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which requires that applicants applying for asylum must be referred for a “credible fear interview,” and will likely be granted asylum if an asylum officer determines that the asylum seeker has a “credible fear of persecution”

2. 8 U.S.C. § 1182, which gives discretion to the Attorney General to provide bond and release asylum seekers temporarily, and ICE Directive No. 11002.1, which requires that “[e]ach alien’s eligibility for parole should be considered and analyzed on its own merits and based on the facts of the individual aliens case.”

3. The Flores Settlement Agreement, which requires that minors must be held in facilities run by licensed programs that are “safe and sanitary and are consistent with [Defendants’] concern for the particular vulnerability of minors” and must “provide access to toilets and sinks, drinking water … adequate temperature control and ventilation, adequate supervision to protect minors from others, and contact with family.”

On January 16, 2019, the parties jointly requested that the Court stay proceedings because the appropriations act that had been funding the Department of Justice expired and the required appropriations lapsed. Absent an appropriation, the Department attorneys, including the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this case, were prohibited from working on substantive matters. The lapse occurred because of a government shutdown that lasted from December 22, 2018-January 25, 2019. The Court granted the motion on January 17, 2019 and gave the Defendants an extension to file their answer.

On February 7, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice. The case is closed. Although the notice does not give a reason for Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal, it was likely because on January 25, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum indicating that it would begin a process of implementing Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In this process, all non-Mexican nationals who arrive on land seeking to enter the United States from Mexico illegally or without proper documentation would be returned to Mexico for the duration of their Section 240 removal proceedings and could only return to the United States as necessary and appropriate to attend their immigration court proceedings. (see the resource titled "Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols")