Alvarez-Marquez v. Wolf

Background

The plaintiffs were Henry Yuviny Marquez Paredes, who was in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, and Diana Alvarez-Marquez. They filed a petition seeking a court order requiring the Department of Homeland Security to accept a $5,000 bond ordered by Immigration Judge Thomas J. Mulligan on December 23, 2019. They also sought an order requiring the Enforcement and Removal Operations New York Field Office to complete processing and posting of the bond and related activities by 3:00 p.m. on December 24, 2019.

The plaintiffs said that after the bond hearing, their lawyer went to the relevant office with Paredes’s spouse and two bond supporters. They alleged that the office had closed early and posted a notice stating that it had stopped accepting new bonds at noon because of the holidays. They argued that the early closure prevented Paredes from posting bond and caused an unlawful detention in violation of agency procedures and the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections.

Legal standard

The court treated the request as an application for a temporary restraining order, an emergency injunction. The plaintiffs had to show likely irreparable harm—harm that could not be adequately repaired later—and either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. Because the requested order would require the government to take action and would provide substantially all of the relief sought, the court explained that a heightened showing of likely success could apply.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown likely irreparable harm. Even accepting their factual assertions, they cited no cases showing that a two- or three-day delay in processing a bond, including delays during national holidays, amounted to unconstitutional detention. The court distinguished their situation from cases involving a refusal to hold a bond hearing, a refusal to grant bond, or an outright refusal to process a valid bond. It found that their conclusory statements about extreme and irreparable harm were insufficient.

The court also held that the plaintiffs had not shown likely success on the merits. The plaintiffs relied on a provision in the Enforcement and Removal Operations Bond Management Handbook stating that bond-accepting offices must serve the public from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The court found that this handbook was not a regulation and emphasized that the handbook itself stated that it was intended for ICE’s internal management and created no enforceable rights or benefits. The plaintiffs did not identify authority showing that the handbook created rights, had the force of law, or made the alleged early closing a constitutional due-process violation.

The court further found that the plaintiffs had not shown that they had completed all steps needed to process the bond before 3:00 p.m. The time stamp on the cashier’s check showed that it was issued at 3:03 p.m. on December 23, 2019, at a Bank of America several blocks from the relevant office. Counsel explained that the plaintiffs had initially brought other checks but obtained the cashier’s check because she was concerned the office would not accept those checks. The court therefore found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated either that ICE had a legal duty to process the payment after noon or that ICE would have accepted the paperwork and payment had the office remained open until 3:00 p.m.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that the plaintiffs’ application for emergency relief was denied. He directed the plaintiffs to file electronically the supporting documents they had previously sent to chambers. He also ordered that, if they intended to seek a preliminary injunction, they must meet and confer with the government and submit a proposed briefing schedule.