9th Circuit Rules That AG And DHS Secretary Are Proper Respondents For Habeas Petition Challenging Immigration Detention

IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY

Arrest and Detention

9TH CIRCUIT RULES THAT AG AND DHS SECRETARY ARE PROPER RESPONDENTS FOR HABEAS PETITION CHALLENGING IMMIGRATION DETENTION
Immigrants' Rights Update,Vol. 17, Issue 5, September 4, 2003

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the attorney general and the secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security are the proper respondents for a habeas petition filed by an immigration detainee. The decision comes on the appeal from a district court denial of a habeas petition filed against the Immigration and Naturalization Service by a pro se detainee.

While in a habeas case the proper respondent is the "custodian" of the detainee, the dismantling of the INS and the transfer of most of its functions to the DHS presented an issue of first impression for the court as to who should be considered the proper custodian. In concluding that both the attorney general and the DHS secretary should be named as respondents, rather than the official with immediate responsibility over the facility where the immigrant is detained, the court relied on the fact that immigration detainees may frequently be transferred from one facility to another. A significant consequence of the decision is that habeas petitions need not be filed in the particular federal district where the petitioner is currently detained.

In finding that the heads of the two federal agencies with authority over immigration detention are the proper respondents rather than the immediate custodian, the court distinguished the decisions of two other circuits, Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688 (1st Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 816 (2001), and Li v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500 (3d Cir. 1994). The court noted that both of those cases relied on nonimmigration cases and did not consider the particular circumstances of immigration detention. The court rejected the claim that naming the heads of the agencies as respondents would open the door to forum-shopping by petitioners, noting that traditional venue considerations still require that actions be brought only in districts with some relationship to the case, such as the district where the material events in the case took place, or the district most convenient for the parties. Moreover, the court noted that "there are indications that the district courts in areas where immigration detention centers are located have been flooded with detainee habeas petitions," and the court's decision may tend to alleviate this problem.

Having found that the petition in this case did not name the proper respondents, the court remanded the case to the district court to allow the petitioner to amend the petition to name these officials as respondents.

Armentero v. INS, No. 02-55368 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2003).