Marroquin Ambriz v. Barr

Background

Daniel Marroquin Ambriz filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. He had been in removal proceedings since January 23, 2013, and ICE detained him on May 21, 2018, after he completed a criminal sentence. His removal proceedings remained pending after the Board of Immigration Appeals twice sent the case back to the immigration judge for further proceedings.

At a June 27, 2018 bond hearing, the immigration judge denied bond and found that Marroquin Ambriz was a danger to property and a flight risk. He was not represented by counsel at that hearing. In August 2019, he asked for another bond hearing based on the length of his detention, his planned participation in drug treatment, positive activities while detained, and the effects of his detention on his family. The immigration judge denied the request, finding no materially changed circumstances. The judge's written explanation stated that Marroquin Ambriz had failed to prove that he was not a danger to property.

Jurisdiction and exhaustion

The court held that it could review the petition because federal courts may review immigration bond decisions for constitutional claims and legal errors, while they may not second-guess an immigration judge's discretionary weighing of evidence. Although Marroquin Ambriz's administrative appeal was still pending, the court waived the prudential exhaustion requirement. It reasoned that the Board of Immigration Appeals could not decide the constitutional issues and that waiting several more months could cause irreparable harm from continued detention.

Merits

The court considered whether the length of Marroquin Ambriz's detention required a bond hearing under the Due Process Clause at which the government would bear the burden of proof. Applying an individualized due-process analysis, the court found that his 17-month detention and the nearly 15 months since his last bond hearing created a strong private interest. It also noted that his detention in a county jail exceeded the time he had collectively served for his criminal convictions.

The court recognized that some delay resulted from Marroquin Ambriz's requests for time to obtain counsel and his appeals. But it declined to penalize him for seeking counsel or correcting immigration-judge errors, particularly because the Board of Immigration Appeals had twice remanded his removal proceedings. The court found the government's interest in avoiding another bond hearing comparatively weaker, especially because conducting the hearing would impose minimal cost and would not prevent the immigration judge from evaluating evidence and credibility.

The court concluded that prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) entitled Marroquin Ambriz to a bond hearing at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community. It also concluded that his earlier hearings had not used that required standard and that the immigration judge had improperly placed the burden on him to show that he was not dangerous.

Disposition

The court granted Marroquin Ambriz's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered the government to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 21 days, with the government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Marroquin Ambriz is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.