Barahona-Gomez

Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I dissent. The plain language of section 1252(g) deprives the district court, and this Court, of jurisdiction over the instant matter. The Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 , 119 S.Ct. 936 , 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999), only strengthens the argument that the district court did not have jurisdiction over this issue of executive adjudication.

Section 1252(g) delineates three specific areas where Congress decided to streamline the immigration process by precluding judicial review. The statute states in relevant part:

8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g) (Supp. II 1996) (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court read section 1252(g) to prevent review of “three discrete actions” of the Attorney General. American-Arab, 525 U.S. at 482 , 119 S.Ct. 936 . As the Court explained, the “theme” of the IRRIRA is to shield certain executive decisions on immigration from judicial interference. Id. at 486 , 119 S.Ct. 936 . While the Court called for a “narrow reading” of section 1252(g), it found that the statute prevented judicial review of the claims of several resident aliens who alleged that they were the targets of selective…

Opinion by Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL.

In Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir.1999) (“Barahona I”), we affirmed a district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction against delegates of the Attorney General. Shortly after that opinion was filed, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 , 119 S.Ct. 936 , 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (“American-Arab”). Although the parties to Barahona I did not seek rehearing of their case,-we sua sponte requested that they provide supplemental briefing concerning the effect of Americanr-Arab on the district court’s jurisdiction to enter the preliminary injunction. Having now'considered our decision in light of Americanr-Arab, as well as other circuit court cases decided in the wake of American-Arab, we reaffirm our original judgment.

I

The salient facts of the controversy were described in Barahona I. In brief, this appeal concerns the propriety of a preliminary injunction enjoining the application of two directives issued by Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) Chairman Paul Schmidt and Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy that plaintiffs contend…