Alejandro Rodriguez v. Timothy Robbins, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7565

Background

Appellees represent a certified class of noncitizens detained for more than six months under 8 U.S.C. §§1226(c) or 1225(b) who have not had bond hearings and challenge continued detention.
District court issued a preliminary injunction requiring bond hearings before an Immigration Judge with potential release, unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that detention is warranted for flight risk or danger.
Government contends mandatory detention under 1226(c) and 1225(b) has a constitutional and statutory permanent mandate with no time limit.
The court, applying constitutional avoidance and existing Ninth Circuit precedents, construes the statutes to require a six-month maximum before a bond hearing is required, subject to individualized determinations.
Hearings and related procedures had begun in November 2012; hundreds of hearings occurred and about two-thirds led to release, indicating practical impact of the injunction.
Appellees seek to protect fundamental liberty interests by ensuring prompt, neutral review of continued detention.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1226(c) is limited by a six-month time frame requiring a bond hearing	Rodriguez argues for six-month limitation under Casas/Tijani	Robbins contends §1226(c) is mandatory detention with no time limit	Yes; six-month period with bond hearing required when detention becomes prolonged
Whether §1225(b) must be construed to avoid constitutional concerns	Rodriguez seeks six-month implicit time limit for 1225(b) detainees	Robbins argues for plain mandatory detention until removal proceedings conclude	Yes; §1225(b) read to be implicitly time-limited, shifting to §1226(a) after six months
Whether bond hearings must be before a neutral judge with clear and convincing evidence standard	Singh requires neutral IJ and clear and convincing burden	Government asserts existing parole framework is sufficient and hearings are not required	Yes; bond hearings before a neutral judge with clear and convincing evidence are required
Whether prolonged detention raises irreparable harm and public-interest considerations	Detention beyond six months causes irreparable harm and is detrimental to public interest	Detention is a lawful exercise of authority and in the public interest to enforce removal	Yes; irreparable harm established and public interest supported by ensuring constitutional compliance
Whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction	Injunction appropriately narrows enforcement to avoid constitutional concerns	Injunction excessively interferes with statutory mandates	No; injunction properly tailored to ensure constitutional compliance and uniform application

Key Cases Cited

Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (upheld mandatory detention during removal proceedings but with noted limits on duration)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (indefinite detention constitutional concerns; supports reasonable-time limits)
Casas-Castrillon v. DHS, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) (detention beyond brief periods requires neutral forum to contest necessity of detention; time-limited view of §1226(c))
Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005) (limits on prolonged detention under §1226(c); supports time-limited interpretation)
Diouf v. Napolitano (Diouf II), 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (extended Casas reasoning to §1231(a)(6); prolonged detention at six months trigger bond hearing)
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (burden of proof at Casas hearings; contemporaneous record required)
Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1953) (entry-exclusion context; limited due process protections for arriving aliens)
Barrera-Echavarria v. Rison, 44 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir. 1995) (Mezei-based reasoning on entry-detention; pre-IIRIRA framework)
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1982) (returning permanent residents entitled to due process; Mezei applicability limited)