Calderon-Rodriguez v. Wilcox
374 F. Supp. 3d 1024
W.D. Wash.2019Background
- Petitioner, an El Salvador national, has been detained by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) for over six and a half years while removal proceedings (cancellation of removal) pend; he has three DUI convictions (2005, 2007 misdemeanors; 2011/2012 DUI/vehicular assault felony) and received noncustodial sentence for the felony (work release and probation).
- Petitioner received five bond hearings before the same IJ (2012–2015); the IJ repeatedly denied bond, finding petitioner a flight risk and danger to the community based largely on his criminal history.
- Administrative review: BIA and Ninth Circuit proceedings produced remands on competency and factual findings; some appeals are pending. ICE’s custody review continued detention (no administrative finding of flight risk).
- Petitioner sought a bond redetermination in 2018 citing changed circumstances (sobriety, family needs, treatment plans, length of detention); the IJ denied the motion as not materially changed.
- District court reviewed constitutional challenges under habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2241), focused on whether IJ erred legally by failing to assess flight risk/danger on a current basis and whether the record meets the clear-and-convincing standard for prolonged detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ lawfully applied due process in denying bond (current risk standard) | Robart: IJ failed to assess flight risk/danger on a current basis and over-relied on past convictions; detention violates due process | Gov: BIA upheld IJ; discretionary bond findings not subject to judicial second-guessing | Court: IJ erred as a matter of law by not reassessing recency; petitioner entitled to a new bond hearing (but not immediate release) |
| Whether length of detention must be considered independently at bond hearings | Petitioner: length of prolonged detention is an independent due-process factor | Gov: Length is not a separate factor; bond focuses on flight risk/danger | Court: Declined to require an independent length-of-detention factor (no binding authority); length relevant insofar as it bears on flight/danger analysis |
| Whether record contains clear and convincing evidence of current dangerousness/flight risk | Petitioner: Criminal history alone, remote in time, plus evidence of sobriety and compliance, does not meet clear-and-convincing standard | Gov: IJ and BIA found government met clear-and-convincing standard based on criminal history | Court: On de novo review, record does not clearly and convincingly show current risk; alternatives to detention could protect community; order a new bond hearing where government must justify continued detention within 45 days or release on conditions |
| Whether Eighth Amendment/conditions of confinement warrant release | Petitioner: Long transfers, solitary, housing with prisoners, and poor conditions amount to punishment violating Eighth Amendment | Gov: Immigration detention is civil; Eighth Amendment inapplicable to immigration custody | Court: Denied Eighth Amendment claim; challenges to conditions are for civil-rights suits, not habeas here |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.) (government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detainee is flight risk or danger)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (indefinite post-removal detention raises serious constitutional concerns)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (statutory interpretation: periodic six‑month bond hearings not required by §1226(a))
- Ramos v. Sessions, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal.) (de novo review to assess whether facts clearly and convincingly support detention)
- Cortez v. Sessions, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (N.D. Cal.) (post-Jennings analysis concluding clear-and-convincing standard survives)
- Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.) (post-removal-order detainees entitled to bond hearings after six months)
- Ngo v. INS, 192 F.3d 390 (3d Cir.) (risk-of-flight and dangerousness must be assessed on a current basis)