## Facts

- The INS enforced INA § 274C (8 U.S.C. § 1324c) by serving noncitizens accused of immigration-related document fraud with (1) a Notice of Intent to Fine and (2) a Notice of Rights/Waiver.
- If the recipient did not request a hearing in writing within 60 days, the INS entered an unappealable final order of liability by default.
- A § 274C final order rendered the noncitizen deportable and permanently excludable, with deportation generally automatic subject to narrow exceptions.
- The plaintiffs alleged the INS’s nationwide notice and waiver forms were written in dense legal language and failed to clearly explain: (a) the immigration consequences of a § 274C final order, and (b) that signing a waiver or failing to request a hearing would trigger an immediate, unreviewable order with those consequences.
- Many class members, often with limited English proficiency and limited familiarity with legal procedures, signed waivers or failed to respond and thereby forfeited their hearing rights without understanding the consequences.
- The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of noncitizens subject to final § 274C orders based on allegedly inadequate notices, granted summary judgment for the class on due process grounds, and entered a permanent injunction allowing reopening and requiring changes to notices and procedures, including a Spanish-language notice provision.
- The government appealed, challenging jurisdiction under IIRIRA (including 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)), the merits of the due process ruling, class certification, and the scope of injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether IIRIRA, including 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over a classwide constitutional challenge to the INS’s § 274C notice/waiver procedures.
2. Whether the INS’s nationwide procedures for obtaining waivers and entering default § 274C final orders provided constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to be heard under the Fifth Amendment.
3. Whether Rule 23(b)(2) class certification and the scope of permanent injunctive relief were proper for a uniform-policy challenge.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the district court had jurisdiction because the suit was a collateral, systemwide due process challenge to notice and waiver procedures, not a challenge to discretionary decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders under § 1252(g).
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the class, concluding the INS’s nationwide waiver/default procedures in § 274C cases violated procedural due process.
- The court affirmed Rule 23(b)(2) class certification because the common claim concerned uniform agency forms and practices suited to injunctive relief.
- The court largely affirmed the permanent injunction as an appropriate remedy for a nationwide procedural violation.
- The court modified the injunction by striking the specific requirement that notices be provided in Spanish, leaving the method of meeting constitutional notice standards to the agency.

## Legal Principles

- Fifth Amendment due process applies to federal administrative procedures that create or fix immigration consequences as severe as deportability and permanent inadmissibility.
- Under Mathews v. Eldridge, courts weigh (1) the private interest, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards, and (3) the government’s interests and administrative burdens.
- Notice is constitutionally deficient when forms and procedures are so confusing or incomplete that recipients are not adequately informed of their rights and of the consequences of waiver or default, especially when default produces an unreviewable order with grave immigration effects.
- Jurisdiction-stripping provisions aimed at particular removal-related decisions do not necessarily bar collateral, systemic challenges to the legality of agency procedures used to generate the predicates for removal consequences.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate when plaintiffs challenge a uniform policy or practice and seek declaratory or injunctive relief applicable to the class as a whole, even if individual circumstances vary.
- Equitable relief may be nationwide when the challenged practice is nationwide, but courts may avoid prescribing specific operational means where the agency can choose among constitutionally adequate options.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld jurisdiction and determined that the INS’s standardized § 274C notice-and-waiver process failed to provide adequate, comprehensible notice of rights and consequences before imposing unappealable orders that triggered severe immigration penalties; it affirmed classwide injunctive relief requiring reopening opportunities and revised procedures while removing a mandate for Spanish translations and leaving implementation details to the agency.


Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998)