United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
BOBBY CANDRA, ZHAFIRAH CANDRA, ALBERT CANDRA, and MUHAMMAD CANDRA, Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
CHRIS M. CRONEN, TIMOTHY STEVENS, and KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Respondents/Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
B. Saris Chief U.S. District Judge.
Bobby Candra, an Indonesian national, and his three U.S.
citizen children bring this action against a number of
government officials to challenge U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)'s denial of
Candra's most recent application for an administrative
stay of removal. Candra brings a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that ICE's denial of his stay
application and attempt to remove him violate due process.
The Candra Children bring an action under the Administrative
Procedure Act (“APA”) alleging that the denial
was an abuse of discretion and a violation of their own Fifth
Amendment due process rights. The Government has moved to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure
to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
hearing, the Government's motion to dismiss (Docket No.
25) is ALLOWED without prejudice.
an Indonesian national, has lived and worked in the United
States since 2000. He resides with his wife and children in
Somersworth, New Hampshire. For almost seven years, he has
worked as a machine operator and maintenance technician for
Natural Rocks Ice Company in Eliot, Maine. He is an active
member of his community and participates in activities at his
Candra Children, a daughter and two sons, are all U.S.
citizens born in New Hampshire. Candra's daughter,
Zhafirah, 15, attends Somersworth High School and Career
Training Center. She plans to matriculate in college and
hopes to become an environmental engineer. Candra's older
son, Albert, 14, attends Somersworth Middle School.
Candra's younger son, Muhammad, is six years old. None of
the three children speaks, reads, or writes Indonesian.
describes his family as “moderate” Muslims. If he
is deported and his family follows him to Indonesia, he
believes that his children will face discrimination by
religious and anti-American extremists. He also believes that
Indonesian law will require his children to eventually choose
between their Indonesian and U.S. citizenships. He is
particularly concerned about Zhafirah's future in
Indonesia because she will have to wear a hijab and will not
receive the mental health care she needs.
are two local officials from ICE and the U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security, who oversees ICE.
Candra's Immigration History
entered the United States in August 2000 on a B-1
nonimmigrant visitor visa valid for three months. He
overstayed his visa and was ordered removed on May 22, 2006.
He did not leave the United States, and ICE never removed
2013, ICE placed Candra under an order of supervision
requiring him to report monthly to the ICE office in
Manchester, New Hampshire. Two months later, he applied to
ICE for a one-year administrative stay of removal, which ICE
granted. He sought and received a similar one-year stay each
year from 2014 to 2016.
January 2017, Candra applied for another stay of removal. ICE
denied his application on February 8, 2017. He reapplied on
September 13, 2017 and was again denied. ICE's denials
came on form letters without any factual basis or reasoning.
Instead, the letters stated simply that ICE “carefully
reviewed [his] file, as well as the factors addressed in the
Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, ” and
“determined that the grant of such discretionary relief
[was] not sufficiently warranted.” Docket No. 3, Exs.
P-Q. Plaintiffs allege that ICE did not in fact engage in any
analysis of Candra's circumstances and instead has a
blanket policy of denying stay applications.
that month, Candra asked the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) to reopen his removal proceedings so that
he could seek relief from his removal order. The BIA denied
the motion to reopen on February 27, 2018. Candra's
then-counsel did not inform him that his motion had been
denied until more than thirty days had passed. As a
consequence, Candra missed the deadline for seeking review of
the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen in the First
Circuit. On April 27, 2018, Candra asked the BIA to reissue
its decision to allow him an opportunity to file a petition
for review with the First Circuit. It is not clear whether
the BIA has ruled on this request.
while, Candra has been regularly reporting to ICE. Compl.
¶ 33. During an early April 2018 visit, ICE attached an
ankle bracelet to him and ordered him to report back on April
13 with proof of a plane ticket to leave the United States on
or before May 3, 2018. Id. Candra purchased a plane
ticket and reported to ICE as required on April 13. Compl.
filed suit on April 27, 2018. The complaint pleads two causes
of action challenging ICE's September 2017 denial of
Candra's application for a stay of removal. In Count I,
Candra brings a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging
that, after ICE granted him four prior stays of removal,
ICE's denial of his latest stay application and
subsequent attempt to remove him violate his Fifth Amendment
due process rights. Specifically, he alleges that the agency
did not consider the unique circumstances of his situation or
give him a chance to challenge his removal. In Count II, the
Candra Children bring a claim under the APA arguing that
ICE's denial of the stay application was arbitrary and
capricious and an abuse of discretion and violated their due
process rights by forcing them to leave the United States
when their father is removed.
ask the Court to stay Candra's removal until the BIA
rules on his latest motion to reopen and he exhausts his
administrative and judicial challenges to removal. They also
request an injunction vacating ICE's denial of his stay
application and requiring ICE to grant any future stay
applications unless it makes ...