415 F.Supp.3d 258
D. Mass.2019Background
- Class action by non‑criminal immigrants detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) challenging immigration‑court bond hearing procedures (due process and APA claims).
- BIA practice placed burden on the alien to prove he is neither dangerous nor a flight risk at bond hearings (drawn from 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8) and BIA precedents such as Adeniji/Guerra).
- Court previously certified two classes (Pre‑Hearing and Post‑Hearing) for the due process claim and allowed amendment to include the APA claim.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment asking (inter alia) that the Government bear the burden, the standards be clear and convincing for dangerousness and preponderance for flight, and that judges consider ability to pay and alternatives to detention.
- Court granted summary judgment: found BIA’s burden‑allocation unconstitutional and violative of the APA; required Government to prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence or flight risk by a preponderance; required consideration of ability to pay and alternative conditions (e.g., GPS).
- Court issued a declaratory judgment and a partial injunction ordering immediate application of these procedures and limited disclosure of Post‑Hearing class member information to class counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof at §1226(a) bond hearings | Government must bear burden; placing it on alien violates due process | BIA precedent and regulation place burden on alien; statute silent | Court: Due Process requires Government bear burden in §1226(a) hearings |
| Standard of proof for detention grounds | Government must prove dangerousness and flight risk by clear and convincing evidence | No specific constitutional standard; current "to the satisfaction" standard acceptable | Court: Government must prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence or flight risk by preponderance |
| Consideration of ability to pay and alternatives to detention | IJ must assess ability to pay and consider conditions (GPS, supervision) before setting bond | Procedures not mandated by statute; administrative burden and backlog concerns | Court: IJs must evaluate ability to pay and reasonable alternative conditions to avoid unnecessary detention |
| APA challenge to BIA burden rule and classwide relief | BIA policy is arbitrary, capricious and unlawful because unconstitutional; APA review available | §1252(f)(1) limits classwide relief; injunction would burden system | Court: APA claim viable; BIA policy set aside under APA; §1252(f)(1) does not bar declaratory relief here and injunction allowed in part (limited disclosures; new procedures prospectively) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (Supreme Court declined to decide whether Constitution requires particular bond procedures under §1226(a))
- Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992) (due process limits on civil confinement)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standard of proof in civil commitment proceedings)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (clear and convincing standard for pretrial detention based on dangerousness)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (due process requires Government bear burden at §1226(a) bond hearings)
- Reid v. Donelan, 390 F. Supp. 3d 201 (D. Mass. 2019) (D. Mass. decision applying similar standards for §1226(c) detainees)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) (courts must consider alternative conditions and ability to pay in bond determinations)