Esteban Aleman Gonzalez v. William Barr
955 F.3d 762
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiffs are a certified Ninth Circuit class of noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) with final (or reinstated) removal orders, held six months or longer, and who have “live” challenges to removal (e.g., withholding-only claims).
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring an individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge after 180 days of detention for class members whose release or removal is not imminent, placing the burden on the Government to justify continued detention (clear and convincing standard pursuant to Singh).
- The Government appealed only the merits question, arguing that Diouf v. Napolitano (Diouf II), which required such hearings under § 1231(a)(6), is clearly irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez and therefore cannot control.
- The Ninth Circuit panel analyzed whether Jennings undermined Diouf II (high Miller standard for overruling earlier panel precedent) and whether Diouf II’s use of the constitutional-avoidance canon to require bond hearings was permissible.
- The panel affirmed: Diouf II remains binding because Jennings targeted different statutes and recognized material textual differences; Jennings did not undo Singh’s due-process burden rule; and the Third Circuit’s post-Jennings decision in Guerrero-Sanchez supports Diouf II. Judge Fernandez dissented, arguing Jennings clearly overrules Diouf II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Diouf II remains controlling after Jennings | Diouf II is controlling Ninth Circuit precedent requiring bond hearings under § 1231(a)(6) | Jennings invalidated the canon-based bond-hearing constructions and is clearly irreconcilable with Diouf II | Diouf II is not clearly irreconcilable with Jennings and remains binding |
| Whether § 1231(a)(6) requires an individualized bond hearing after six months when removal/release is not imminent | Yes — Diouf II requires an IJ bond hearing for prolonged § 1231(a)(6) detention | No — statute’s text doesn’t support inserting a bond‑hearing requirement | The court held Plaintiffs are likely to succeed; § 1231(a)(6) construed per Diouf II requires such hearings |
| Who bears the burden and standard at the bond hearing | Plaintiffs: Government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence (Singh) | Government: Jennings undermines imposing burden via prior circuit law | Singh’s due‑process holding survives Jennings; Government bears clear and convincing burden |
| Whether district court improperly re-applied the canon or misread Clark/Zadvydas | Diouf II is consistent with Zadvydas and Clark; district court properly followed binding precedent | District court incorrectly re-applied constitutional-avoidance or departed from Zadvydas/Clark framework | District court did not err; injunction consistent with Clark/Zadvydas and Diouf II |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (applied constitutional-avoidance canon to § 1231(a)(6), holding six months a presumptively reasonable detention period and requiring government rebuttal once removal is not reasonably foreseeable)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (rejected Ninth Circuit’s canon-based constructions of other INA detention provisions and limited application of constitutional-avoidance to the specific statutes at issue)
- Diouf v. Napolitano (Diouf II), 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (construed § 1231(a)(6) to require individualized IJ bond hearings for prolonged detention)
- Casas‑Castrillon v. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) (construed § 1226(a) to require individualized bond hearings to avoid constitutional doubt)
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (held due process requires government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is necessary)
- Guerrero‑Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2018) (post‑Jennings decision adopting Diouf II’s construction of § 1231(a)(6) and Singh burden)
- Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (held Zadvydas construction of § 1231(a)(6) applies uniformly across the statute’s categories)