12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

CHRIS NEWMAN, SBN 255616newman@ndlon.orgJESSICA KARP, SBN 277347 jkarp@ndlon.org NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK 675 S. Park View Street, Suite BLos Angeles, California 90057Telephone: (213) 380-2214Facsimile: (213) 380-2787

 

112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This case challenges Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) practice of issuing immigration holds, also known as immigration detainers, toindividuals in the custody of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies(“LEA”) without probable cause to believe the individuals are removable inviolation of the Fourth Amendment. This Court has subject matter jurisdictionunder 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Article III of the U.S. Constitution. It has authority togrant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief under 5 U.S.C. § 702. Alternatively, this Court has subject matter jurisdictionunder 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as the issuance of an immigration hold places Plaintiffs inthe concurrent custody of ICE. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

INTRODUCTION

2. An immigration hold is a request that an LEA continue to detain anindividual for 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, beyond the time he or she would otherwise be released from criminal custody, giving ICE extra time toinvestigate whether he or she is subject to removal and assume physical custody.Because immigration holds purport to authorize two to five days of imprisonmentunrelated to the initial criminal custody, they effectively cause a new seizure, andmust be supported by probable cause to believe the individual so detained issubject to detention and removal. And yet, in practice, ICE has a pattern of notrequiring its agents to establish probable cause before issuing immigration holds.On the contrary, ICE routinely begins to investigate whether an individual issubject to removal only

 after 

 he or she has been subjected to additional detentionunder the immigration hold, or after he or she is in ICE’s physical custody. Whenit comes to immigration holds, ICE’s mantra is:

 Detain first, investigate later.

 As aresult, ICE’s issuance of immigration holds violates the Fourth Amendment byrestraining and depriving individuals of their liberty without probable cause.3. Nationally, between fiscal year 2008 and the beginning of fiscal year 2012,