A federal judge in California has dismissed a federal lawsuit filed by hundreds of people held in federal immigration detention — nearly half of whom are in Louisiana — who alleged that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has illegally singled them out, detaining and keeping them locked up for extended periods of time.
The 276 plaintiffs in the case are all from countries — including Russia, Georgia and Kazakhstan — that were once part of the Soviet Union. They allege that ICE has an unwritten policy, which the lawsuit refers to as the “Russian Detention & Deterrence Scheme,” of issuing blanket denials to Russian-speaking asylum-seekers asking for temporary release from detention while their cases are being considered.
On Friday (Feb. 14), Judge Andrew Schopler of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the federal government a motion to dismiss the case. Schopler did not weigh the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, saying a federal law prohibited him from reviewing the matter.
“I’ve never seen a judge run away from a case,” Abadir Barre, lead attorney for the plaintiffs said in a phone interview after Friday’s hearing.
People in immigration custody may request a temporary release from detention — called parole — while their cases are proceeding. And under a legally binding 2009 policy directive from the Department of Homeland Security, ICE officials are required to consider each request individually, confirming applicants’ identities and determining whether they are flight risks.
Barre hoped to make the argument that the alleged Russian Detention and Deterrence Scheme is a violation of that directive, because people are being denied release based only on their nationality rather than their individual circumstances. But he didn’t get the opportunity as Schopler issued the dismissal before hearing arguments.
Schopler found that he was legally barred from considering the matter under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. The law denies federal courts the authority to weigh in on matters that rely on the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of DHS. As parole decisions are made by officers within ICE, an agency within Homeland Security they fall under the jurisdiction of the secretary of that department.
“The parole statute is full of discretionary language,” said Schopler, who nevertheless said he recognized the “serious allegations” the plaintiffs had brought.
Barre attempted to argue, unsuccessfully, that the case wasn’t seeking to prevent ICE agents from using their discretion. In fact, the alleged deterrence policy actually removed their discretion.
“We are challenging the systematic policy to not review any paroles,” Barre said in court.
Barre, who said he intends to appeal the ruling, said Schopler’s decision allows ICE to “deny parole requests without any scrutiny. Now they know a federal judge will say, ‘It’s up to you, I’m gonna leave it alone.’”
Attorneys for ICE and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Verite News.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
