A request by the federal government to vacate an asylum-seeker’s case against the Department of Homeland Security over courtroom arrest policies was denied by a San Diego judge Friday.
The plaintiff in the case, a 35-year-old human rights defender from an NGO, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents after his asylum hearing at San Diego Immigration Court on June 3.
He was detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility for 16 days and released Thursday. An ICE agent conducting arrests this week, however, claimed that individuals detained inside the immigration court are only kept in custody for “a couple hours.”
The government, in its motion, said that the plaintiff had “no case or controversy” given his release from detention. Judge Jinsook Ohta disagreed and set a new hearing for 9:30 a.m. June 30.
The case, filed on June 4 in the Southern District Court of California, comes amid continuing arrests in hallways and outside of the immigration court, which began around May 20.
The plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit on June 13, which would allow potential relief to be granted to anyone impacted by the courthouse arrests.
“(The government’s) current practice of the overzealous courthouse arrests … has a profound chilling effect on the fundamental pillars of the rule of law,” the complaint wrote.
The lawsuit cites the Trump administration’s published quota of deporting 3,000 immigrants a day as a “disregard of the fundamental principles of due process” and asserts that the practice of conducting civil arrests at asylum hearings is “unprecedented in United States history.”
The immigration arrests are largely warrantless, the lawsuit alleges. If ICE has paperwork, it is an administrative warrant by the agency, not one reviewed by a judge. The latter is generally granted if there is reason to believe that the arrestee is violating immigration law and if that person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
“Those who were similarly arrested at the downtown courthouse (are) deprived of their credible fear interviews, and are at risk of being sent on an airplane out of the jurisdiction or country without an opportunity to access or speak with an attorney despite their credible fear claims,” the lawsuit alleges.
Credible fear interviews are conducted by a federal asylum officer to determine whether an individual subject to expedited removal has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in their home country.
According to multiple immigration attorneys, most individuals detained thus far in San Diego Immigration Court have been placed in expedited removal proceedings.
Those proceedings effectively circumvent a non-citizen’s right for a hearing before an immigration judge and allow non-citizens to be removed if they fail a credible fear interview before an immigration officer.
The asylum seeker’s lawsuit alleges that the practice of “forcing expedited removal” is retaliatory to individuals filing an asylum claim or appearing at mandated immigration court hearings.
Amongst other items, the lawsuit seeks to declare DHS’ courthouse arrest practices unlawful.
Ohta indicated in a June 18 order that during the case’s hearing, she wants “a witness from DHS” to provide testimony about the decision-making process behind both the detention of the plaintiff and courtroom arrests in general.
