420 F.Supp.3d 953
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Petitioner Daniel Marroquin Ambriz, a 36‑year‑old noncitizen who entered the U.S. in 1996, has a limited criminal history (multiple short jail stints for DUI, theft, disorderly conduct) and probationary convictions; ICE detained him on May 21, 2018 after a conviction for taking a vehicle without owner’s consent.
- He was previously released on ISAP with GPS monitoring; removal proceedings began in 2013, an IJ ordered removal in 2015, and the BIA granted a 2016 appeal and remanded for further proceedings.
- Ambriz has been detained at Yuba County Jail since May 21, 2018 (≈17 months at time of filing). He had prior bond hearings (bond set at $7,000 in 2015 and 2016) but has not obtained release.
- On June 27, 2018 an IJ denied bond (finding danger to property and flight risk) at an unrepresented hearing; Ambriz unsuccessfully sought reconsideration under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e) in August 2019, where the IJ ruled he failed to show materially changed circumstances and noted petitioner’s burden.
- Ambriz filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Sept. 16, 2019) arguing prolonged detention without a new bond hearing (with the government bearing the burden by clear and convincing evidence) violated due process. The IJ’s decision appealed to the BIA remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review bond determinations under §1226(a) | Habeas review is available for constitutional claims and legal error; court may review mixed questions of law and fact. | §1226(e) precludes review of discretionary decisions to detain or deny bond. | Court has habeas jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional challenges to bond decisions (Singh, Jennings principles apply). |
| Prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies | Waiver permissible because BIA cannot decide constitutional claims and delay would cause irreparable harm (continued detention). | Petitioner hasn’t exhausted BIA appeal; exhaustion should not be waived. | Waived exhaustion: BIA lacks authority on constitutional claims and petitioner faces irreparable harm from continued detention. |
| Whether prolonged detention entitles petitioner to a new bond hearing with government bearing burden by clear and convincing evidence | Prolonged detention (≈17 months) plus IJ’s misallocation of burden requires a new bond hearing where government must prove danger/flight by clear and convincing evidence. | Jennings rejects judicially imposed periodic hearings and specific requirements; no statutory right to periodic review. | Due process requires a new bond hearing here: petitioner’s prolonged detention and the IJ’s legal error (placing burden on petitioner) entitle him to a hearing where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence danger or flight risk. |
| Remedy and timing | Immediate new bond hearing with correct burden. | Continued detention pending BIA and IJ procedures. | Granted habeas: government must provide a bond hearing before an IJ within 21 days; government bears burden by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prieto‑Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (explains §1226(a) detention scheme and bond‑redetermination procedure)
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (habeas review available for constitutional claims and legal error; articulates burden standards)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (rejects statutory requirement for periodic six‑month bond hearings; remanded constitutional questions)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (addresses constitutionality of mandatory immigration detention in certain contexts)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due‑process balancing test applied to procedural‑safeguards claims)
- Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2007) (sets prudential exhaustion factors)
- Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2004) (addresses exceptions permitting waiver of administrative exhaustion)
- Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007) (discusses mixed questions of law and fact and habeas jurisdiction)
- Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2011) (describes administrative appeal followed by habeas as review path)
- Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421 (9th Cir. 1995) (BIA lacks jurisdiction to decide constitutional challenges to statute)
- Judulang v. Chertoff, 562 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (example of court concluding evidence failed as matter of law to prove flight risk or danger)