Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Immigration Law

CA11 on Prolonged ICE Detention, Bivens, Jurisdiction: Alvarez v. ICE

Alvarez v. ICE, Mar. 24, 2016- "Although we hold that § 1252(g) does not bar us from considering the merits of Alvarez’s claim, we also find that no Bivens remedy is available to him, both because the Immigration and Nationality Act sets out sufficient meaningful remedies for Alvarez and similarly situated aliens, and because numerous special factors counsel against supplementing this scheme with a new judicially created cause of action. Notwithstanding having legislated substantially and repeatedly in this area, Congress did not provide an avenue by which Alvarez can seek monetary relief. We defer to its judgement and hold that no Bivens remedy is available to a plaintiff who claims that immigration officials unconstitutionally prolonged his detention." (Majority)

DIssent - "The allegations in this case are disturbing. They suggest that an ICE official ignored the law, intentionally deprived Alvarez of meaningful review, and knowingly made false statements to keep him in custody when the law required him to be released. The majority’s analysis in this case is also troubling. To deny a Bivens remedy, the majority seems to cast aside the motion to dismiss standard by ignoring Alvarez’s well-pled allegation that Munoz purposefully denied him meaningful review under the existing regulations and procedures. After properly applying the motion to dismiss standard and crediting Alvarez’s plausible allegations, I would recognize that Alvarez has a Bivens remedy for his due process claim against Munoz. I would also hold that the district court erred in its alternative conclusions that Heck v. Humphrey, qualified immunity, and the statute of limitations barred Alvarez’s claim. I dissent because I would allow Alvarez’s claim against Munoz to proceed."