Quan v. Barr
3:20-cv-08118
N.D. Cal.Jan 29, 2021Background
- Petitioner: Vietnamese national and U.S. lawful permanent resident with severe childhood brain injury causing cognitive impairments (mental functioning about a 12‑year‑old); never lived independently.
- Criminal history: two misdemeanors (late 1990s) and two felonies — 2001 sexual offense with a minor and a 2011 aggravated assault on a police officer (resulting in an 8‑year sentence).
- DHS detained petitioner after 2018 release; IJ conducted competency inquiry, ordered evaluation, found petitioner not competent to self‑represent, and appointed counsel (Franco‑Gonzalez class procedures applied).
- Bond history: IJ denied bond at an August 2018 hearing and again after a May 8, 2020 custody redetermination (IJ found DHS proved dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence); BIA affirmed.
- Claims in §2241 petition: (1) denial of due process because IJ/BIA failed adequately to consider the remoteness of the 2011 conviction, petitioner’s cognitive impairment, and prior favorable INA §212(h) ruling; (2) Rehabilitation Act (§504) violation for failure to accommodate disability.
- Disposition: Magistrate Judge Beeler denied the §2241 petition, holding the IJ considered and weighed the evidence and no §504 violation occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence at bond hearing (due‑process) | The IJ ignored the remoteness of the 2011 assault and failed to give weight to rehabilitation and favorable discretionary immigration rulings | IJ considered criminal history, continuous custody since 2011, petitioner’s denial of responsibility, and relevant equities; government met burden | Denial of bond supported: IJ considered and weighed the evidence; decision not clear legal error |
| Whether IJ failed to account for petitioner’s cognitive impairment in assessing dangerousness (due‑process) | Cognitive deficits explained petitioner’s demeanor and lack of expressed remorse and should mitigate dangerousness | IJ recognized and considered impairments and still found they did not outweigh the danger evidence | No due‑process violation; IJ considered impairments and reasonably discounted their mitigating effect |
| Whether IJ’s handling violated Rehabilitation Act §504 (failure to accommodate) | IJ’s process and decision effectively denied benefits because of petitioner’s disability | Petitioner had appointed counsel and cites no additional accommodations required; IJ considered disability in decisionmaking | No §504 violation: appointed counsel and the record show consideration of impairments |
| Whether IJ improperly disregarded IJ Burch/Judge Park’s prior favorable INA §212(h) adjustment grant | Prior favorable discretionary immigration rulings should materially lessen dangerousness and favor release | IJ reviewed those rulings but permissibly gave greater weight to criminal record and denial of responsibility | Court: IJ considered prior rulings and permissibly weighed them against criminal history; no legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Wolf, 445 F. Supp. 3d 275 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (government must prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence at bond hearings)
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (sets custody‑redetermination factors and affords IJs broad discretion to weigh them)
- Franco‑Gonzalez v. Holder, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (requires procedures and accommodations for detainees with serious mental disorders; class referenced in this case)
- Calderon‑Rodriguez v. Wilcox, 374 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (example where remoteness and documented rehabilitation supported release)
- Lopez‑Reyes v. Bonnar, 362 F. Supp. 3d 762 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (example where treatment/sobriety and updated evaluations supported bond)
- Judulang v. Chertoff, 562 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (decades‑old violent conviction with no evidence of likely recurrence supported release)