In 1988, plaintiff Rafeedie, a Jordanian national and permanent resident alien who had resided in the U.S. since 1975, filed suit in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") to conduct summary exclusion ...
read more >
In 1988, plaintiff Rafeedie, a Jordanian national and permanent resident alien who had resided in the U.S. since 1975, filed suit in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") to conduct summary exclusion proceedings against him under Section 235(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(c). The INS invoked the summary procedure on alleged confidential information that it received which indicated that plaintiff was a high-ranking member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. ("PFLP"). Under the summary proceedings, plaintiff was not given a hearing, had no opportunity to present witnesses. He was only allowed to present a written statement without knowing what evidence the government allegedly had against him. Plaintiff claimed that these summary proceedings violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and his rights under the First Amendment rights. He moved for a preliminary injunction barring the INS from conducting summary and ordinary exclusion proceedings.
The government moved to dismiss for a variety of reasons, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
On June 15, 1988, the District Court denied the government's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to some of his claims. Rafeedie v. I.N.S., 688 F.Supp. 729 (D.D.C. 1988). Reconsideration was denied but a stay was granted pending appeal. Rafeedie v. I.N.S., 1988 WL 90201 (D.D.C. Aug 04, 1988).
On appeal, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part as to the injunction against summary exclusion proceedings under section 1225(c), but reversed the injunction against ordinary proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and reversed the holding that Rafeedie may not have a right to due process. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Rafeedie v. I.N.S., 880 F.2d 506, 279 (D.C.Cir. 1989)
On remand, the District Court (Judge Joyce Hens Green) granted summary judgment to plaintiff in part and to the government in part. The Court held that the INS' attempt to use summary exclusion proceedings against the plaintiff violated due process. The Court noted that until this case, the INS had not utilized summary exclusion procedures against permanent residents for 40 years and that such proceedings were not warranted given the facts developed in the record. The Court also found that several sections of the challenged statute were constitutionally invalid. Rafeedie v. I.N.S., 795 F.Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1992). Both parties appealed but subsequently withdrew their appeals and entered into a Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of the settlement, the government agreed to admit Rafeedie as a permanent resident alien and dropped its exclusion proceedings against him.
Following the settlement, plaintiff moved for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, which the District Court granted in the amount of $258,385.00. Rafeedie v. I.N.S, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22505 (Aug. 22, 1996). The government appealed the fee award but subsequently dismissed its appeal.Dan Dalton - 12/21/2007