Saravia v. Sessions

Background

Ilsa Saravia sued on behalf of herself, minor A.H., and other similarly situated people. The opinion states that the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' actions injured her, A.H., and members of the proposed settlement class. The dispute concerned certain unaccompanied minors—minors who came to the United States without a parent or legal guardian—who were released from Office of Refugee Resettlement custody to a parent or sponsor and later rearrested and detained by the government based on allegations of gang affiliation.

The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction for a provisionally certified group. That injunction required the government to establish changed circumstances or dangerousness at a hearing to justify rearrest and continued detention. The parties later executed a settlement agreement on September 15, 2020. On October 16, 2020, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, approved the proposed notice plan, and provisionally certified the settlement class.

Settlement Approval

After considering the settlement agreement, the parties' arguments at a fairness hearing on January 14, 2021, and the other submissions, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement and certification of the settlement class.

The court found that the notice's form and method satisfied due-process requirements and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e). It also found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate; that experienced counsel negotiated it at arm's length and in good faith; and that counsel had enough opportunity to evaluate the claims and litigation risks. The court gave final approval to the settlement, incorporated its terms into the order, and directed the parties to carry out the agreement.

Settlement Classes

For settlement purposes only, and without deciding the merits, the court certified a class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The class includes noncitizen minors who: (1) came to the United States as unaccompanied minors; (2) were detained in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody and then released to a sponsor; and (3) were or will be rearrested by the Department of Homeland Security based on a removability warrant relying in whole or in part on allegations of gang affiliation. The class excludes minors who were already subject to final removal orders.

The court also defined a Claim 4 Benefits Subclass. It consists of settlement-class members who, before age 21, applied for asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile status, T or U nonimmigrant status, or a related waiver or adjustment-of-status application, and whose application was or will be denied by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services when information about actual or possible gang affiliation is a basis for the denial.

Class Representatives and Counsel

The court appointed Ilsa Saravia as class representative for settlement purposes only and found that she would adequately represent the settlement class. It designated Cooley LLP as class counsel under Rule 23(g), finding that the firm had adequately represented and would adequately represent the class. The order also states that the settlement was not an admission by the defendants of the allegations, fault, wrongdoing, or lack of merit of the plaintiffs' allegations.

Judge Vince Chhabria entered the order on January 19, 2021. The order approved and certified the settlement arrangements but expressly did not adjudicate the underlying claims on their merits.