NYC Settles $92.5 Million Case for Unlawful Immigrant Detention

Significant Settlement for Unlawfully Detained Immigrants

New York City recently announced a substantial legal settlement involving payment of up to $92.5 million. This decision, facilitated by the law firms Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, LLP and Benno & Associates, addresses claims by individuals unlawfully detained by the city's Department of Correction. This period spanned from April 1, 1997, to December 21, 2012. Approximately 20,000 individuals were unlawfully detained as a result of U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests, and these claims received preliminary approval from the New York State Supreme Court.

Understanding ICE Detainer Requests

ICE detainers are essentially requests from federal immigration authorities that require local law enforcement to hold an individual for up to 48 business hours past their scheduled release date. This setup allows ICE to take custody of detainees who are in the country unlawfully. Unfortunately, many individuals found themselves holding in actual detention for days or even weeks longer than necessary. One striking example is Oscar Onadia, who, after completing a five-day sentence, was held for an additional 41 days due to ICE's actions.

Impact on Individuals and Families

Due to these detainer requests, many immigrants experienced prolonged separations from family and community, leaving a lasting impact on their lives. The collective overdetention experienced by Class Members adds up to a staggering 166,000 days beyond scheduled release dates. Many of these individuals now live both in the United States and in other countries. The disproportionate detainment significantly complicates their lives, leaving them grappling with mental health issues stemming from the trauma of being unlawfully detained.

Criticism and Changes in Policy

New York City's prior practice of accommodating ICE detainer requests was met with widespread criticism. Critics emphasized how these policies dissuade immigrants from cooperating with local law enforcement, driven by a fear of deportation. As a response to public outcry and the legal landscape, the city has largely ceased honoring ICE detainer requests, acknowledging that such detainers do not demonstrate probable cause necessary for lawful detention.

Personal Experiences Highlighting the Issue

Frank Barker, a former detainee, shared his disheartening experience. After moving to the U.S. as a legal resident from Barbados at a young age, Barker was arrested in 2008. Following his time in jail, he faced unjust ICE detention for another year, an ordeal that deeply affected his life. Barker eloquently voiced his support for the ongoing legal action, urging those who have faced similar experiences to stand united and seek justice.

Settlement Details and Future Considerations

The settlement stemming from the case Onadia v. City of New York allows the city to deny any liability while still establishing a fund to compensate affected individuals. The total compensation will cater to the specifics of each case, particularly the duration and timing of overdetentions. This marked financial commitment signals a step towards accountability and recognition of the injustices suffered by many.

Quotes from Legal Representatives

Debra L. Greenberger, partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, expressed pride in addressing the injustices faced by the individuals involved. She emphasized the fundamental right to due process that all individuals must be entitled to under the law and how this settlement reaffirms that principle.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the total amount of money involved in the settlement?

The total settlement amount is up to $92.5 million, aimed to compensate those unlawfully detained.

Who are the law firms involved in this legal action?

The law firms involved are Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, LLP and Benno & Associates, P.C.

What were ICE detainers originally intended for?

ICE detainers were designed to enable U.S. Immigration officials to take custody of individuals who might be unlawfully present in the U.S., extending their detention period.

How many individuals were reportedly affected?

More than 20,000 individuals were affected by unlawful detentions due to ICE detainer requests during the specified time frame.

What does this settlement mean for future immigration policies?

This settlement suggests a shift in immigration policies, reinforcing the importance of due process and the need for scrutiny of detainer requests moving forward.

About Investors Hangout

Investors Hangout is a leading online stock forum for financial discussion and learning, offering a wide range of free tools and resources. It draws in traders of all levels, who exchange market knowledge, investigate trading tactics, and keep an eye on industry developments in real time. Featuring financial articles, stock message boards, quotes, charts, company profiles, and live news updates. Through cooperative learning and a wealth of informational resources, it helps users from novices creating their first portfolios to experts honing their techniques. Join Investors Hangout today: https://investorshangout.com/

Disclaimer: The content of this article is solely for general informational purposes only; it does not represent legal, financial, or investment advice. Investors Hangout does not offer financial advice; the author is not a licensed financial advisor. Consult a qualified advisor before making any financial or investment decisions based on this article. The author's interpretation of publicly available data shapes the opinions presented here; as a result, they should not be taken as advice to purchase, sell, or hold any securities mentioned or any other investments. The author does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any material, providing it "as is." Information and market conditions may change; past performance is not indicative of future outcomes. If any of the material offered here is inaccurate, please contact us for corrections.