BASSAM KHOURY V. NATHALIE ASHER, No. 14-35482 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 1, 2019.
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 4 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BASSAM YUSUF KHOURY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-35482 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01367-RAJ MEMORANDUM* NATHALIE ASHER, Field Office Director, ICE; et al., Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 8, 2015 Seattle, Washington Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Defendants appeal from the district court’s order certifying a class of alien detainees and declaring that the class was entitled to bond hearings. The class comprised aliens who were subjected to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) even though they were not detained immediately upon their release from * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. criminal custody. In granting class certification and declaratory relief, the district court concluded that § 1226(c) applies only to aliens who are detained immediately upon their release from criminal custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The plain language of § 1226(c) makes clear that mandatory detention applies only to those aliens detained “when [they are] released” from criminal custody. See Preap v. Johnson, slip op. at ____. Because the phrase “when . . . released” conveys a degree of immediacy, “§ 1226(c) applies only to those criminal noncitizens who are detained promptly after their release from criminal custody, not to those detained long after.” Id. at ___. We disagree with the government’s arguments under United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711 (1990), that it should nonetheless be allowed to hold without bond aliens whose detention is untimely under § 1226(c). Montalvo-Murillo is distinguishable. See Preap v. Johnson, slip op. at ___. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
