On March 2, 2007, a resident alien and two organizations that represent indigent aliens, the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project (PAIR) and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenging the mandatory detention provision of Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The plainitff also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting his immediate release from detention.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that Section 236(c) of the INA, in effect since October 9, 1998, requires the mandatory detention without bond of virtually all immigrants who commit a specified removable offense upon the immigrant's release from the criminal custody that resulted from the offense. Section 303(b) ("Transitional Period Custody Rules" or "TPCR") of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA") provision, in effect until October 9, 1998, also required detention upon release for those who committed specified removable offenses, but did not preclude bond. Plaintiffs contended that the government misinterpreted both of those provisions and as a result, improperly detained individuals in contravention to the statutes.

Defendants moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the PAIR and CLINIC lacked standing and because the complaint failed to state a claim. All parties then moved for summary judgment.

On July 12, 2007, the District Court (Judge Richard G. Stearns) held a hearing on the limited issue of the plaintiff's writ of habeas corpus and deferred ruling on the other claims and defenses. Before the Court ruled on the habeas corpus petition, the plaintiff was released from custody, and he voluntarily dismissed his claims. Another detained alien, then moved to intervene in the case and be substituted as the named individual plaintiff.

The District Court (Judge Stearns) then took up the remaining motions. He denied the the second detained alien's motion to intervene and dismissed the remainder of the case, holding that organizations lacked standing to continue to pursue the case on Parinejad's behalf once he was released from custody. The Court noted that if the second detained alien wished to litigate the lawfulness of his detention, he needed to file his own lawsuit. -- F.Supp.2d ----, 2007 WL 2372627 (D.Mass.).

As of the date of this summary, plaintiffs had not filed a notice of appeal and the case remained closed.

Dan Dalton - 09/24/2007


compress summary