Alejandro Rodriguez v. Timothy Robbins
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18758
| 9th Cir. | 2015

Background

  • Petitioners (certified class of non-citizens) challenged prolonged civil immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a) without individualized bond hearings.
  • District court granted summary judgment for the class and entered a permanent injunction requiring automatic bond hearings by an IJ for detainees held six months or more, with the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is necessary for flight risk or danger.
  • The injunction applied to detainees under §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a); the government appealed.
  • The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its prior holdings (Rodriguez II and circuit precedent) that prolonged civil immigration detention raises serious due process concerns and that detention becomes "prolonged" at six months.
  • The court affirmed in part, reversed in part: it upheld automatic bond hearings, the clear-and-convincing burden, and the requirement to consider alternatives to detention; it reversed as to the § 1231(a) subclass and required periodic six-month re-hearings for detainees held beyond twelve months.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether class members detained six months+ under §§ 1226(c) and 1225(b) are entitled to automatic bond hearings Mandatory detention statutes must be read to contain an implicit time limit; after six months detainees get bond hearings Statutes permit mandatory detention without categorical bond hearings; challenges should be as-applied via habeas Affirmed: under constitutional-avoidance precedent (Rodriguez II et al.), six months triggers bond hearing entitlement for §§ 1226(c) and 1225(b) subclasses
Whether § 1226(a) detainees are entitled to automatic bond hearings after six months Prolonged detention under § 1226(a) requires Casas-style bond hearings and should be automatic because detainees often don't realize how to request hearings § 1226(a) already allows detainees to request redeterminations; automatic hearings are unnecessary Affirmed: § 1226(a) detainees get automatic bond hearings at six months (Casas binding)
Whether § 1231(a) detainees are within the certified class and entitled to injunction relief Petitioners included stayed-final-order detainees and argued § 1231 application could render prolonged detention without process Government argued class coverage was improper and statutes differ Reversed: § 1231(a) does not apply to class as defined (class excludes those subject to final removal orders); injunction vacated as to § 1231(a) subclass
Procedural protections at bond hearings: burden of proof, consideration of alternatives, length/likelihood-of-removal inquiry, periodic hearings Plaintiffs sought clear-and-convincing standard, requirement that IJs consider length of detention and likelihood of removal, and six-month periodic re-hearings after 12 months Government challenged clear-and-convincing standard and some procedural requirements as improper or burdensome Mixed: Court (bound by Singh) requires government to prove by clear-and-convincing evidence; IJs must consider alternatives; IJs must consider past length of detention; IJs need not assess speculative likelihood of removal at every hearing; periodic six-month re-hearings required for detention beyond 12 months

Key Cases Cited

  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (recognizing six months as a presumptively reasonable period for post-removal detention and applying constitutional avoidance to limit indefinite detention)
  • Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (upholding brief mandatory detention under § 1226(c) where detention is limited in time)
  • Casas‑Castrillón v. Department of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.) (prolonged detention under § 1226(a) triggers right to a bond hearing)
  • Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.) (government must prove by clear and convincing evidence at Casas hearings)
  • Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.) (extended Casas protections to § 1231(a)(6) detainees and adopted the six‑month definition of prolonged detention)
  • Rodriguez v. Robbins (Rodriguez II), 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (panel opinion extending six‑month bond‑hearing rule to §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) and applying Singh/Casas procedures)
  • Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.) (noting excessive pre-removal detention is questionable and limiting § 1226(c) application)
  • Diop v. ICE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir.) (construing § 1226(c) to permit detention only for a reasonable time before individualized inquiry)
  • Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir.) (held long pre-removal detention unreasonable)
  • United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (framework that liberty is the norm and civil detention must meet narrow justifications)
  • Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (civil commitment limits tied to purpose and reasonable duration)
  • Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (indefinite civil confinement requires present dangerousness and procedural protections)
  • Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (heightened proof standard for civil confinement where liberty interest is substantial)
  • Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (applying Zadvydas six‑month presumption)
Read the full case