Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Medina v. U.S. Department Od Homeland Security

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

November 8, 2017





         This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Dkt. #90. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES the motion.


         A. Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez Medina

         Plaintiff, Daniel Ramirez Medina, is 24 years old, and the father of an American-born son. Dkt. #78 at ¶ 5. According to his Second Amended Complaint, Mr. Ramirez was brought to this country from Mexico in or around 2003, when he was approximately 10 years old. Id. Mr. Ramirez alleges that he recently moved from California to Washington to obtain more lucrative employment to better support his son.[1] Id.

         In late 2013, Mr. Ramirez first applied for deferred action and work authorization pursuant to the government's “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (“DACA”) policy. Dkt. #78 at ¶ 41. As part of this process, Mr. Ramirez provided the government with his birth certificate, school records, and information about where he lived, and was required to attend a biometrics appointment so that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) could take his fingerprints and photographs. Dkt. #78 at ¶ 41. Mr. Ramirez was granted deferred action and work authorization in 2014. Id.

         In 2016, Mr. Ramirez reapplied for DACA status, and again was granted deferred action and work authorization. ¶ 42. As part of this process, Mr. Ramirez received an approval notice (the “2016 DACA Approval Notice”) informing him that his request for deferred action had been granted. Id. The 2016 DACA Approval Notice provided that “[u]nless terminated, this decision to defer removal action will remain in effect for 2 years” and is valid until May 4, 2018. Id., Ex. G. The 2016 DACA Approval Notice also informed Mr. Ramirez that his deferred action could be terminated if he engaged in “[s]ubsequent criminal activity.” Id.

         On February 10, 2017, at approximately 9:00 a.m., a team of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested Mr. Ramirez's father outside of the apartment where Mr. Ramirez, his father, and his brother were then living. Id. at ¶ 44. ICE agents entered the apartment.[2] Id. The agents found Mr. Ramirez asleep, woke him up, and began to question him. Id. at ¶ 45. Mr. Ramirez provided the agents with his name and birthdate, and told them that he was born in Mexico. Mr. Ramirez was then placed in handcuffs. Id.

         According to Mr. Ramirez, he told the ICE agents repeatedly that he had a legal work permit, but the ICE agents refused to release him. Id. at ¶ 46. Mr. Ramirez's father also repeatedly informed the ICE agents that Mr. Ramirez had a legal work permit, and questioned why he was being detained. Id.

         Mr. Ramirez was then transported to an ICE holding facility in Tukwila, Washington. Id. at ¶ 47. At the holding facility, the ICE agents confiscated Mr. Ramirez's work permit. Id. at ¶ 48. That permit was marked with a “C33” designation, which identified Mr. Ramirez as a DACA recipient with work authorization. Dkt. #78, Ex. F at 112. The ICE agents also fingerprinted Mr. Ramirez and used this information to access his records, which revealed that Mr. Ramirez has no criminal history, had twice been granted DACA status, and possessed valid employment authorization through May 4, 2018. Id. at ¶ 49. Defendants refused to release Mr. Ramirez even after they confirmed his DACA status. Id. at ¶ 50. Defendants subsequently cited Mr. Ramirez's receipt of DACA as evidence of his “illegal” status in this country. Id., Ex. H at 3.

         According to Mr. Ramirez, the ICE agents began to interrogate him, asking him numerous times whether he was in a gang, which he denied, and whether he had ever known anyone who was a gang member. Id. at ¶ 51. Mr. Ramirez told the agents that although he knew students who had attended middle school and high school with him who were in gangs, he was not gang affiliated and never had been. Id. The ICE agents also asked Mr. Ramirez about the tattoo on his forearm (which consisted of the words “La Paz-BCS” and a nautical star). ¶ 52. Mr. Ramirez got the tattoo when he was 18 years old. La Paz is Mr. Ramirez's birthplace, and “BCS” stands for Baja California Sur, the region in which La Paz is located. Id. The agents apparently insisted to Mr. Ramirez that it was a gang tattoo, which he also denied. 53.

         Prior to being transferred to the Northwest Detention Center, the ICE agents asked Mr. Ramirez if there were any gangs with which he would like to avoid being placed for his safety. Id. at ¶ 54. Mr. Ramirez again stated that he had no gang affiliation and would not have problems being placed with anyone. Dkt. #78 at ¶ 54. Upon continued questioning, Mr. Ramirez ultimately indicated that if he had to be placed with any group, he would prefer “the Paisas.” Id. Mr. Ramirez understands the colloquial use of “Paisas” to mean Mexicans, and was attempting to communicate that if given the option, he would prefer to be placed with other Mexicans. Id.

         Mr. Ramirez was then transferred to Northwest Detention Center, where he remained in custody for the next 47 days. Id. at ¶ 55. While at the Detention Center, Defendants classified Mr. Ramirez as a “medium-high” security risk. Id. at ¶ 59. Mr. Ramirez requested that he be reclassified because he was not, and never had been, gang affiliated. Id. The request was denied. Id. During his detention, Mr. Ramirez asserts that he feared for his safety because many of the other inmates believed he was affiliated with a gang due to the statements made after his arrest. Id.

         Defendants issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on February 10, 2017. Dkt. #78, Ex. I. Defendants assert that Mr. Ramirez's DACA status terminated on the day the NTA was issued. Dkts. #78 at ¶ ¶ 60 and 61, Ex. J and #90 at 7.

         USCIS then sent Mr. Ramirez a Notice of Action (“NOA”) dated February 17, 2017. Dkt. #78, Ex. J. The NOA states that Mr. Ramirez's deferred action and employment authorization terminated on the date the NTA was issued, and provides that “[a]n appeal or motion to reopen/reconsider this notice of action may not be filed.” Id.

         In the meantime, on February 13, 2017, Mr. Ramirez filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus in this Court. Dkt. #1. This Court ultimately declined to order the release of Mr. Ramirez and directed him to file a motion in Immigration Court. Dkt. #69. Pursuant to that Order, Mr. Ramirez filed such motion and received a bond hearing in Immigration Court on March 28, 2017. Dkt. #78 at ¶ 78. Mr. Ramirez was released on bond on March 29, 2017. Id., Ex. V.

         On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in this matter. Dkt. #78. In that Complaint, Plaintiff drops his habeas claim, and alleges claims against several federal agencies, as well as individual officers. Id. The claims against the individual Defendant have since been dismissed. Dkt. #112. Against the remaining federal agencies, collectively, Plaintiff asserts the following claims: 1) violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) (Counts One and Two); and 2) violation of the Fifth Amendment (Count 8).[3] Dkt. #78 at ¶ ¶ 85-105 and 148-150.

         B. The DACA Program

         On June 15, 2012, former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced the creation of the DACA program. Dkt. #78, Ex. C (“Napolitano Memo”). In her memorandum, Ms. Napolitano provided DHS with guidelines regarding the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion to focus enforcement efforts away from low priority cases, including individuals who came to the United States as children. Id. The Napolitano Memo listed the following five criteria that must be satisfied before an individual can be considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under DACA:

• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
• has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• is not above the age of thirty.

Dkt. #78, Ex. C. Individuals must also pass a criminal background check to be eligible for DACA. Id. at 2.

         Under the DACA program, deferred action is provided for a renewable period of two years, and DACA recipients are eligible to apply for work authorization during the period of deferred action. Id. at 3; see also 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) (permitting USCIS to establish a specific period for employment authorization for aliens who have been granted deferred action).

         The National Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”) issued by DHS describe the procedures to be followed in adjudicating DACA requests and terminating DACA status. See Dkts. #78, Ex. F (“DACA National Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”)”, dated April 4, 2013) and #109-1, Ex. A (excerpts of DACA SOP, dated August 28, 2013). The SOP states that it is applicable to all personnel ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.