ARELI VEGA REYNA, as next friend of J.F.G., K.G., J.D.V. and J.D.V., all minor children; MACARIO DIAZ MORALES; KAREN VITELA, as next friend of M.V.R.C., a minor; HUMBERTO RAMOS RAYGOZA; ADELA MEJIA, as next friend of K.D.R.M., a minor, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
RUSSELL HOTT, in his official capacity as Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Virginia Field Office; RONALD D. VITIELLO, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Department of Homeland Security; ELAINE C. DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants - Appellees. JACK P. SHONKOFF, M.D.; JAMES A. COAN, Ph.D.; J.H. PATE SKENE, J.D., Ph.D.; LINDA C. MAYES, M.D.; JOSEPH WOOLSTON, M.D.; AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY; AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION; CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS COALITION, Amici Supporting Appellant.
Argued: December 12, 2018
from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O'Grady,
District Judge. (1:17-cv-01192-LO-TCB)
Nicholas Richard Klaiber, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.
Michael Kurz, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, Rebecca R. Wolozin, Falls Church,
Virginia, Angela Adair Ciolfi, LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellants.
H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey,
Director, Jeffrey S. Robins, Assistant Director, District
Court Section, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
W. Snapp, Christopher S. Burrichter, Chicago, Illinois, G.
Eric Brunstad, Jr., DECHERT LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for
Amici Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D., James A. Coan, Ph.D., J.H. Pate
Skene, J.D., Ph.D., Linda C. Mayes, M.D., Joseph Woolston,
M.D., the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, and the American Psychoanalytic Association.
Appelbaum, Claudia Cubas, David Laing, CAPITAL AREA
IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS COALITION, Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition.
NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
NIEMEYER, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Diaz Morales and Humberto Ramos Raygoza, who are both aliens,
were arrested and detained in Farmville, Virginia, by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a), pending removal for being in the
United States without inspection or admission. They, along
with their children, commenced this action against officials
of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security, challenging
their transfer or anticipated transfer from ICE's
detention facility in Farmville, Virginia, to its facility in
Livingston, Texas, or another facility out of State. They
alleged that such transfers "separat[e] [them] from
their children and mak[e] it impossible for children to have
access to their parents or to visit them" and therefore
violate their "substantive due process right to family
unity" and their "procedural due process right to
notice and an opportunity to be heard" before such
transfers, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Because ICE
"frequently transfers detainees among its detention
facilities," they also sought to represent a nationwide
class of detainees and their children. The plaintiffs sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, and Raygoza additionally
sought habeas relief based on the same allegations.
the Department of Homeland Security (collectively, "the
government") filed a motion to dismiss under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending
(1) that, by reason of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the
court did not have jurisdiction to review such discretionary
decisions; (2) that the substantive right to "family
unity" does not exist; and (3) that the plaintiffs have
no liberty interest protected by procedural due process.
the district court rejected the government's
jurisdictional argument, it granted the motion to dismiss,
concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged
that the government's transfer practices violated a
substantive due process right. And without a protectable
liberty interest, the court concluded, the plaintiffs were
not denied procedural due process. ...