Decisions

Hamama v. Adducci

E.D. Mich. · July 24, 2017

Court E.D. Mich.
Decided July 24, 2017
Docket No. 2:17-cv-11910 (ECF No. 87)
Citation 261 F. Supp. 3d 820
Judge Goldsmith, United States District Judge
Disposition Interim relief granted
Nationality Iraq; a certified class of Iraqi nationals, many Chaldean Christians and others facing persecution, holding long-dormant final removal orders
Third country None (removal to country of origin)

The court granted a class-wide preliminary injunction halting removals to Iraq until class members could seek relief in the immigration courts. Its account of what had happened: “Without warning, over 1,400 Iraqi nationals discovered that their removal orders — many of which had lain dormant for several years — were now to be immediately enforced, following an agreement reached between the United States and Iraq to facilitate removal.” One named petitioner had been living in her community under a final order of removal since 1986. The court found that the resulting search for counsel had been “significantly impeded by the Government’s successive transfers of many detainees across the country, separating them from their lawyers and the families and communities who can assist in those legal efforts,” and that people who had lived peaceably for years under limited supervision had had little reason to incur the cost of a motion to reopen before the policy changed. Rejecting the government’s position that only the immigration courts could act, it held that “a federal district court is armed with jurisdiction to act as a first responder to protect the writ of habeas corpus and the allied right to due process,” so that people facing grave harm are not removed before having their day in court.

Caution Vacated. The Sixth Circuit held on 20 December 2018 that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter either injunction and remanded with directions to dismiss the removal-based claims. The Sixth Circuit did not disturb the findings of fact recorded here, which is why they are kept in this collection. Removal was to the class members’ country of origin, not to a third country.

Mass redetention Long-dormant removal orders Bilateral repatriation agreement Habeas jurisdiction Suspension Clause Due process Motions to reopen Transfer of detainees Class action Preliminary injunction

The court's own text

Read in full from the opinion and order as filed (ECF No. 87) and published by the United States Government Publishing Office at govinfo.gov, package USCOURTS-mied-2_17-cv-11910. The opinion is a work of the United States government.

This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.

← All decisions in the register