AROLDO RODRIGUEZ DIAZ V. MERRICK GARLAND
53 F.4th 1189
9th Cir.2022Background
- Aroldo Rodriguez Diaz, a Salvadoran national, was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) after release from county jail in December 2018; an IJ denied bond at a February 2019 hearing based on gang affiliation.
- After a 2019 removal order and vacatur of a drug conviction in September 2019, Rodriguez moved for a new bond/custody redetermination in February 2020, submitting rehabilitation evidence.
- The IJ denied the renewed custody motion (finding no materially changed circumstances); Rodriguez appealed and filed habeas in district court.
- The district court granted habeas in part, ordered a new bond hearing at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary; the IJ then granted bond and Rodriguez was released.
- The government appealed; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that due process does not require a second bond hearing with the government bearing a clear-and-convincing burden under § 1226(a).
- The court assumed (without deciding) Mathews applies, weighed the three Mathews factors, and concluded § 1226(a)’s procedures satisfy due process facially and as applied to Rodriguez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a second bond hearing after prolonged § 1226(a) detention with the government bearing the burden by clear and convincing evidence | Rodriguez: prolonged detention entitles detainees to an additional bond hearing and Singh-style burden-shifting (government proves by clear and convincing) | Government: § 1226(a) already provides layered process; Mathews balancing and immigration deference make additional hearings/burden-shift unnecessary | Ninth Circuit: No — due process does not require a second hearing with a clear-and-convincing government burden under § 1226(a) |
| Whether Ninth Circuit precedent (Singh, Casas, Diouf, Rodriguez III) compels burden-shifting for § 1226(a) detainees | Rodriguez: prior Ninth Circuit decisions imply a constitutional right to shifted burden in prolonged detention contexts | Government: Supreme Court decisions (Jennings, Arteaga-Martinez, Garland) undermined the statutory basis for those precedents; Singh's burden-shift depended on an implied statutory right now rejected | Court: Prior precedent does not control here; Singh and related cases rested on statutory readings the Supreme Court rejected, so they do not mandate relief under § 1226(a) |
| Appropriate legal test: apply Mathews v. Eldridge balancing? | Rodriguez: Mathews favors additional protections after prolonged detention | Government: immigration context warrants deference to legislative/executive judgments; Mathews may be inapposite or favor government | Court: Assumed Mathews applies; concluded first factor (liberty) favors detainee but second (risk of error) and third (government interest) weigh against additional procedures; overall Mathews favors government |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (used constitutional avoidance to limit post-removal detention and recognized a six‑month benchmark)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upheld mandatory detention during removal proceedings and emphasized deference to political branches)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (rejected Ninth Circuit constructions that imposed periodic bond hearings absent statutory support)
- Johnson v. Arteaga‑Martinez, 142 S. Ct. 1827 (2022) (rejected a construction of § 1231(a)(6) requiring six‑month bond hearings with burden‑shifting)
- Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022) (addressed district court jurisdiction and reversed parts of Ninth Circuit's class relief)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (established three‑factor due‑process balancing test)
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (Ninth Circuit required clear‑and‑convincing government burden in prolonged‑detention "Casas" hearings)
- Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (applied Casas logic to § 1231(a)(6) detentions)
- Casas‑Castrillon v. DHS, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) (interpreted prolonged § 1226(c) detention and implied procedural protections)
- Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015) (Rodriguez III — affirmed district court orders imposing periodic hearings for a class, later revisited by Jennings)
- Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2018) (held duration alone does not sustain a due process challenge when § 1226(a) process was afforded)
- Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020) (held prolonged § 1226(a) detention entitled detainee to renewed hearing with government bearing clear‑and‑convincing burden)
- Hernandez‑Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021) (similar to Velasco Lopez: found § 1226(a) procedures inadequate as applied after prolonged detention)