Matacua v. Frank
308 F. Supp. 3d 1019
D. Me.2018Background
- Zacarias, a Mexican national who entered without inspection in 2007, has lived continuously in the U.S., works in Willmar, Minnesota, and is primary provider for his partner and two daughters.
- On March 11, 2017 he was convicted of gross misdemeanor DWI; sentenced to jail (364 days, 334 stayed) and two years probation with strict conditions; ICE detained him on May 11, 2017 and commenced removal proceedings.
- IJ Olmanson granted bond ($5,000) on June 29, 2017, finding Zacarias neither a danger nor a flight risk based on lack of prior convictions and compliance with probation; DHS appealed to the BIA.
- The BIA vacated the IJ’s bond grant in a one-page order, concluding Zacarias failed to show he was not a danger, citing DWI dangers and high BAC; Zacarias petitioned for habeas relief in federal court and was re-detained.
- Zacarias alleges the BIA (1) failed to apply the clear-error standard when reviewing the IJ, (2) treated DWI as a per se dangerous offense, and (3) shifted the burden to the detainee; he moved for a preliminary injunction ordering his release pending removal proceedings.
- The district court found it had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s legal errors and granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining detention pending completion of removal proceedings or resolution of the habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has jurisdiction despite 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) | Zacarias: §1226(e) doesn't bar review of constitutional or legal errors (e.g., incorrect standard of review). | Gov: §1226(e) precludes review of discretionary custody decisions. | Court: Jurisdiction exists to review legal questions about BIA's standard-of-review application. |
| Whether BIA applied the clear-error standard in reviewing IJ | Zacarias: BIA failed to apply/justify clear-error review and substituted its own factual judgment. | Gov: BIA’s reversal was proper (discretion to evaluate danger). | Court: Likely to succeed on merits; BIA appears to have disregarded IJ’s factual findings without explaining clear error. |
| Whether DWI was treated as per se dangerous and burden shifted to detainee | Zacarias: BIA effectively imposed per se dangerousness for DWI and shifted DHS’s burden. | Gov: BIA acted within authority given DWI risks. | Court: These claims less clear; not resolved in this order (plaintiff need only likely succeed on one claim). |
| Whether preliminary injunction appropriate (irreparable harm, balance, public interest) | Zacarias: Continued detention causes irreparable harm (loss of liberty, hinders probation compliance and rehabilitation). | Gov: Allowing review and injunction harms immigration system and discretion. | Court: Granted injunction—irreparable harm to Zacarias, balance and public interest favor relief; remand would be futile given timing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waldron v. Holder, 688 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. 2012) (BIA must apply and explain clear-error review of IJ factual findings)
- Ramirez-Peyro v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2007) (reversal where BIA failed properly to review IJ factual findings)
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor preliminary injunction test)
- Fl. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (remand to agency for additional explanation is typical remedy)
- S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. 1992) (likelihood of success is most significant Dataphase factor)
- Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2003) (movant bears burden for preliminary injunction)