Milton Caceres Molina a/k/a Milton Canales Molina v. Joyce

Background

Milton Caceres Molina, also identified as Milton Canales Molina, alleged that he had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for more than 45 months without a bond hearing before a neutral adjudicator. He alleged that he had received deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture because it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in El Salvador. He sued William Joyce, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Caceres sought to set aside ICE’s denial of his request for discretionary release and to require the Government to provide a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim.

Materials Considered

The court held that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, it generally could consider the complaint, documents attached to it, and documents incorporated into it or integral to its claims. The Government submitted a declaration from an ICE deportation officer, an ICE memorandum about post-order custody review, and a December 2024 custody-review decision. Because the Government did not show that these materials were incorporated into or integral to the complaint, the court excluded them from consideration on the motion.

Due Process Claim

The court applied the framework from Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez concerning detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), which governs detention, release, and removal of people ordered removed. The Supreme Court had held that the statute does not itself require bond hearings after six months of detention, but had not decided whether the Fifth Amendment requires such a hearing after prolonged detention.

Caceres argued that his as-applied constitutional challenge should be evaluated under the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge. That test considers the private interest affected, the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the value of additional safeguards, and the Government’s interest. The Government argued in its reply that such a challenge was available only in exceptional circumstances. Because that argument was raised for the first time in reply, the court treated it as waived for purposes of the motion.

The court concluded that Caceres adequately pleaded all three Mathews factors:

- Private interest: Caceres alleged more than 45 months of detention, with no apparent end because of the posture of his immigration proceedings. The court described freedom from imprisonment as a significant liberty interest and also considered his allegations of harsh confinement conditions. - Risk of erroneous deprivation: Caceres alleged that ICE’s internal detention reviews placed the burden on him, were decided by ICE rather than an outside adjudicator, and did not provide an in-person hearing. He also alleged that ICE had failed to conduct reviews required by its regulations. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly showed a substantial risk of erroneous continued detention. - Government interest: The Government did not identify in its opening motion papers an interest in denying Caceres a bond hearing. Its argument that detention protects against flight and danger to the public appeared for the first time in reply. The court treated that argument as waived for this motion and stated that, in any event, evaluating the effect of a neutral bond hearing would require materials beyond the complaint.

The court therefore held that Caceres adequately alleged a Due Process Clause claim. It expressly did not decide whether he would ultimately prevail.

Administrative Procedure Act Claims

Caceres also relied on the Accardi doctrine, which allows a person to challenge an agency’s failure to follow its own rules or policies. He alleged that ICE failed to conduct custody reviews required by regulation. The Government did not dispute that it had failed to conduct all required reviews, although it argued that the reviews it had conducted were reasonable. The court held that Caceres sufficiently stated an APA claim based on the alleged failure to conduct the required reviews.

Caceres separately alleged that ICE failed to follow a policy favoring release of noncitizens after fear-based relief was granted, unless exceptional circumstances existed. The Government argued that ICE had followed the policy and relied on the excluded declaration to assert that exceptional circumstances justified continued detention. The court held that whether ICE followed the policy was a factual question that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. It therefore held that Caceres also sufficiently stated an APA claim based on the alleged failure to follow that policy.

Disposition

The court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide whether Caceres would prevail on either his Due Process Clause claim or his APA claims.