Cruz-Zavala v. Barr
5:20-cv-02142
N.D. Cal.Apr 17, 2020Background
- Petitioner Walter Cruz‑Zavala, a Salvadoran national in ICE custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), has lived in the U.S. for over 15 years and has a criminal history (gang involvement, multiple DUIs, assault on a deputy, weapons conviction).
- Petitioner sought relief from prolonged detention and challenged detention conditions (COVID‑19 risk) and the constitutionality of his bond hearing procedures in a § 2241 habeas petition and TRO.
- Petitioner previously waived or withdrew bond requests in 2017–2018 but moved for a bond hearing on April 11, 2019; an IJ held a May 1, 2019 bond hearing that placed the burden on Petitioner and denied bond; the BIA affirmed.
- Petitioner argued the May 1, 2019 hearing violated procedural due process because the government should have borne the burden of proof (clear and convincing) and the IJ failed to properly consider the length of detention.
- The court granted relief in part: it ordered a constitutionally compliant bond hearing within 30 days, held the government bears the clear‑and‑convincing burden to justify continued detention, and required the IJ to consider length of detention; the court denied immediate release and deemed the TRO moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden at a §1226(a) bond hearing? | Government must bear burden of proof; standard is clear and convincing. | IJ/BIA precedent placed burden on detainee to show not dangerous. | Held for petitioner: government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detainee is flight risk or danger. |
| Was the IJ/BIA error harmless (i.e., must petitioner show outcome would change)? | No showing of changed outcome required; error itself requires relief unless harmlessly affected determination. | Petitioner must show that shifting burden would have changed result. | Held for petitioner: harmless‑error test asks whether error ‘‘adversely affected’’ the IJ’s determination; record does not show harmlessness. |
| Must IJ consider length of prior detention at bond hearing? | Yes; length of detention is a required factor under Ninth Circuit due process precedent. | Reliance on Jennings to argue statutory text does not require consideration of detention length. | Held for petitioner: IJ must consider detention length (Rodriguez v. Robbins remains binding on due process question). |
| Substantive due process challenge to conditions (COVID‑19 risk)? | Conditions present an elevated risk of COVID‑19 transmission that may violate substantive due process. | Respondents disputed factual and legal basis; court need not resolve because procedural claim provides relief. | Not reached: court declined to decide COVID substantive claim because procedural‑due‑process claim resolved petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (due process requires government bear clear‑and‑convincing burden at bond hearings under §1226(a)).
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (Supreme Court limited statutory readings of §1226(a) but did not decide constitutional claims about bond procedures).
- Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015) (under due process, IJ must consider length of detention when deciding bond).
- Casas‑Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) (§1226(a) requires an initial bond hearing).
- Prieto‑Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (due process violations in immigration proceedings are subject to harmless‑error analysis).
- Diouf v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2008) (different INA provisions govern detention at different stages and affect available procedures).