University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective v. Duke IM-CA-0105
Docket / Court 5:17-cv-02048 ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Southern California
Case Summary
On Oct. 5, 2017, the Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective and one of its members sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Represented by the American Civil Liberties ... read more >
On Oct. 5, 2017, the Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective and one of its members sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the ACLU's national Immigrants' Rights Project, plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The organizational plaintiff is a grassroots association led by immigrant youth. The individual plaintiff, a 23-year-old three-time Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient, is one of its members. In Feb. 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him and placed him into deportation proceedings, on grounds that he had smuggled undocumented immigrants. However, the Immigration Judge rejected this allegation and plaintiff was never charged with any crime. Nevertheless, defendants revoked his DACA status, including his work authorization, and he could not have it reinstated.

Plaintiffs alleged that in addition to this one incident, defendants were revoking other DACA recipients' status based not on disqualifying convictions, but on minor incidents in criminal records or unsubstantiated suspicions of criminal conduct, including arrests and charges later resolved in the applicants' favor. These status terminations lacked advance notice, a hearing, or an opportunity for reinstatement. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as certification of a nationwide class of people whose DACA status had been unlawfully revoked. Plaintiff argued that, in terminating DACA status without notice and hearing, defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

On Oct. 6, this case was assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on Oct. 18. They argued they were likely to succeed on the merits and that the individual plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without reinstatement of his DACA status. Plaintiffs pointed to two recent preliminary injunctions of revocation of DACA status without due process, in Gonzales Torres and Colotl Coyotl.

On Oct. 30, defendants responded, opposing plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. Defendants argued that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits, first because the District Court lacked jurisdiction over immigration removal proceedings, and also because DACA was a discretionary DHS program not protected by the Constitution. Plaintiffs replied on Nov. 6. The case was transferred to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez on Nov. 14.

After a Nov. 20 motion hearing, Judge Gutierrez granted plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. Judge Gutierrez first held that the individual plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his APA claim that defendants' revocation of his DACA, based solely on his deportation proceedings, was arbitrary and capricious. The individual plaintiff had also demonstrated the existence of irreparable harm due to loss of income and job opportunities. Further, neither a balancing of hardships nor the public interest favored defendants. Judge Gutierrez enjoined USCIS's decision to terminate the individual plaintiff's DACA status and accompanying work authorization.

This case is ongoing.

Ava Morgenstern - 11/24/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
General
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Criminal prosecution
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - procedure
Employment
Status/Classification
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Work authorization - criteria
Work authorization - procedures
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiff Description An organizational plaintiff of an immigrant-youth-led grassroots association, and an individual plaintiff whose DACA status was terminated
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Southern California
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2017 - n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Inland Empire – Immigrant Youth Collective v. Duke
www.aclu.org
Date: Oct. 18, 2017
By: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
www.dhs.gov
Date: Sep. 5, 2017
By: Department of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Implementation of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
The Washington Post
Date: May 22, 2017
By: Jefferson Sessions (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
Citation: 82 Fed. Reg. Presidential Documents 8793 (Jan. 27, 2017)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 25, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
5:17−cv−02048−MWF−SHK (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0105-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Class Action Complaint [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0105-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/05/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff Jesus Alonso Arreola Robles's Motion For a Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 16]
IM-CA-0105-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 23]
IM-CA-0105-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/30/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Plaintiff Jesus Alonso Arreola Robles's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 25]
IM-CA-0105-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion For a Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 31] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0105-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Gutierrez, Philip S. (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0105-0005 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Kewalramani, Sahshi H. Court not on record [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0105-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California)
IM-CA-0105-0001 | IM-CA-0105-0002 | IM-CA-0105-0004 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Eiland, Katrina L. (California)
IM-CA-0105-0002 | IM-CA-0105-0004 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Hausman, David (New York)
IM-CA-0105-0002 | IM-CA-0105-0004 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Kaufman, Michael Bryan (California)
IM-CA-0105-0002 | IM-CA-0105-0004 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Kwon, Dae Keun (California)
IM-CA-0105-0002 | IM-CA-0105-0004 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Newell, Jennifer Chang (California)
IM-CA-0105-0001 | IM-CA-0105-0002 | IM-CA-0105-0004 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Tan, Michael K. T. (New York)
IM-CA-0105-0002 | IM-CA-0105-0004 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0105-0003
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0105-0003
Robins, Jeffrey S (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0105-0003 | IM-CA-0105-9000
Walker, James Joseph (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0105-0003 | IM-CA-0105-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -