Filed Date: Jan. 19, 2018
Closed Date: Oct. 6, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case, currently being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, is about whether the Constitution requires that noncitizens facing "expedited removal" have access to any review by federal judges. The Department of Justice has taken the position before the Supreme Court that there is no constitutional right to any judicial review of any deportation order, because the Suspension Clause--which bars congressional suspension of access to the judicial writ of habeas corpus (that is, to judicial review)--does not apply to deportations.
On January 19, 2018, a Sri Lankan citizen--arrested after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without documentation and placed in expedited removal proceedings--filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Represented by the ACLU, the plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, several of its constituent agencies, and individual agency officials; he filed a habeas petition to challenge that the summary procedures leading to his expedited removal order violated his statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights. He sought to vacate the removal order and requested relief in the form of a “new, meaningful opportunity to apply for asylum and other relief from removal.” Judge M. James Lorenz and Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler were assigned to the case.
The plaintiff is a native of Sri Lanka and a Tamil, an ethnic minority group in Sri Lanka. The plaintiff fled Sri Lanka in 2016 and at some point ended up in Mexico. On February 17, 2017, the plaintiff crossed the border into the U.S., where he was arrested and placed in expedited removal proceedings. After the plaintiff indicated a fear of persecution in Sri Lanka, an asylum officer (employed by DHS) interviewed the plaintiff. The officer determined that the plaintiff had not established a credible fear of persecution. After a supervising officer and an immigration judge affirmed the officer's finding, the case was returned to DHS for the plaintiff's removal.
The plaintiff's petition asserted two causes of action. First, the plaintiff asserted that the credible fear screening deprived him of a right to apply for asylum, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and the international Convention Against Torture. Second, the plaintiff contended that the asylum officer and immigration judge violated due process by failing to provide the plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity to establish his claims. The core of the plaintiff's claim is that the government failed to follow the required procedures and apply the correct legal standards when evaluating his credible fear claim
On March 5, 2018, the defendants filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)(B), federal courts are jurisdictionally barred from hearing direct challenges to expedited removal orders. Then, on March 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion for stay of removal, where he argued that the court does have jurisdiction to hear his petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)(B) and to "review ... whether the negative credible fear determination was properly made." The plaintiff also asserted that the stay of removal was necessary because returning to Sri Lanka would expose him to extreme danger.
On March 7, 2018, Judge Lorenz recused himself and Judge Anthony J. Battaglia was randomly assigned to the case. On March 8, 2018, Judge Battaglia issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denying the plaintiff's emergency motion to stay removal proceedings, and denying the petitioner's ex parte application for temporary stay. Judge Battaglia reasoned that the clear reading of the applicable federal statute and consistent case law from the Ninth Circuit foreclosed the court's ability to analyze the removal order or review the credible fear determination that resulted in the plaintiff's removal order. The Ninth Circuit has held that the federal statute in question only allows the review of expedited removal orders explicitly enumerated in the statute. Thus, the court cannot broaden or expand the statute to include review based on the plaintiff's contentions. Judge Battaglia also held that the "statute’s 'strict restraints' on habeas review of expedited removal orders did not effectively suspend the writ of habeas corpus and were therefore constitutionally sound." 287 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
On the same day, the plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal and moved for a stay of removal pending appeal. On March 13, 2018, a Ninth Circuit motions panel initially denied the plaintiff's motion to stay removal. However, that decision was reversed on March 21, 2018, and the removal was stayed pending appeal.
On March 7, 2019, Judge Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Keeping in line with precedent, the appeals held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) does not authorize jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's petition. The appeals court then addressed whether the federal provision restricting habeas review violates the Suspension Clause (Article 1, § 9 of the Constitution, which mandates that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”). The court found that the statute, which prevents judicial review of whether DHS complied with procedures or applied the correct legal standards, did not satisfy the constitutional minimum that requires such review. Therefore, the court concluded that the expedited removal statute violated the Suspension Clause because it bars claims relating to a procedural error. Judge Tashima remanded proceedings to the district court to consider the plaintiff's legal challenges to the procedures that led to the removal order. 917 F.3d 1097.
On August 2, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition was granted on October 18, 2019 and oral argument was held before the Supreme Court on March 2, 2020.
The Court issued an opinion on June 25, 2020. The Court held that (1) the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, in limiting habeas review in expedited-removal proceedings, does not violate the Suspension Clause because this interpretation of the writ would extend it far beyond the intended scope of the Constitution, and (2) the Sri Lankan plaintiff lacked the procedural due process right to judicial review of the adverse determination regarding whether or not he had a credible fear of persecution if sent home, as he was owed no additional processes than that dictated by the statute. Justice Alito authored the opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas authored a concurring opinion and Justices Breyer authored a separate concurrence, joined by Justice Ginsberg. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented.
The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case with directions that the application for habeas corpus be dismissed. In accordance with this opinion, on August 12, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the district court's dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, on October 6, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate regarding the dismissal. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Aaron Gurley (2/24/2020)
Rachel Kreager (10/29/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6321028/parties/thuraissigiam-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Battaglia, Anthony Joseph (California)
Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)
Gelernt, Lee (New York)
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York)
Loy, John David (California)
Newell, Jennifer Chang (California)
Perez, Celso Javier (New York)
Thompson, Sarah D. (California)
Wang, Cecillia D (California)
Wofsy, Cody H. (California)
Battaglia, Anthony Joseph (California)
Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)
Gelernt, Lee (New York)
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York)
Loy, John David (California)
Newell, Jennifer Chang (California)
Perez, Celso Javier (New York)
Thompson, Sarah D. (California)
Wang, Cecillia D (California)
Wofsy, Cody H. (California)
Francisco, Noel (District of Columbia)
Hunt, Joseph H. (District of Columbia)
Kneedler, Edwin S. (District of Columbia)
Press, Joshua S. (District of Columbia)
Reuveni, Erez (District of Columbia)
Tripp, Zachary D. (District of Columbia)
Brnovich, Mark (Arizona)
Cohen, David B. (New York)
Cox, Adam (New York)
Crandell, Rusty D. (Arizona)
Hunger, Sarah Ann (Illinois)
Jessen, Katherine H. (Arizona)
Kanefield, Joseph Andrew (Arizona)
Lazarus, Eli M. (California)
Levine, Noah Adam (New York)
Lipshutz, Joshua S. (District of Columbia)
Metlitsky, Anton (New York)
Mohan, Anna O. (District of Columbia)
Muse, Kathryn Hunt (Illinois)
Notz, Jane Elinor (Illinois)
Price, Matthew E. (District of Columbia)
Raoul, Kwame (Illinois)
Rodriguez, Cristina (Connecticut)
Roysden, Brunn Wall III (Arizona)
Savdie, Andrea (New York)
Sawyer, Kate B. (Arizona)
Scapellati, Ethan M. (New York)
Skinner, Oramel Horace (Arizona)
Sokoler, Jennifer B (New York)
VanDam, Jeff (Illinois)
Wishnie, Michael J. (Connecticut)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6321028/thuraissigiam-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 19, 2018
Closing Date: Oct. 6, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Sri Lankan citizen who was ordered to be removed
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Special Case Type(s):
Availably Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Immigration/Border: