De Paz Sales v. Barr

Background

Josep De Paz Sales filed a petition challenging his continued detention during immigration removal proceedings and moved for a temporary restraining order requiring his immediate release. The opinion states that he had been detained at the Yuba County Jail since July 10, 2018. He had convictions for felony burglary and misdemeanor driving under the influence, along with several other listed arrests.

An immigration judge previously denied release after finding that De Paz Sales had not shown he was not a danger to the community. In an October 23, 2019 decision, the immigration judge stated that his criminal history included “several burglaries and DUIs,” battery causing serious bodily injury, hit-and-run, carrying a loaded firearm, and controlled-substance possession. The immigration judge also found that his proposed release plan did not overcome the government’s showing of dangerousness, while alternatively setting a $10,000 bond if the government had not met its burden.

De Paz Sales argued that the immigration judge had misunderstood his record and failed to consider alternatives to detention. He presented evidence concerning rehabilitation, sobriety, education, treatment, monitoring, employment, housing, and community ties. The government argued that the court should not review the immigration judge’s discretionary bond decision and that De Paz Sales had not exhausted his administrative remedies.

Court’s analysis

The court excused the exhaustion requirement because De Paz Sales continued to suffer serious psychological effects from his detention, including anxiety related to threats from other inmates and two suicide attempts. The court relied in part on its earlier finding that additional detention could cause irreparable harm.

The court explained that federal law generally allows detention during removal proceedings but permits release on bond or conditional parole in applicable cases. Although the immigration judge’s discretionary decision ordinarily receives protection from judicial review, the court stated that federal courts may review constitutional challenges and claims that the bond process itself was constitutionally flawed. The court applied a review that gave deference to factual and credibility determinations while examining whether the immigration judge meaningfully considered the record.

The court found clear error in the immigration judge’s statement that De Paz Sales’s history included several burglaries and DUIs. According to the record described by the court, he had been arrested and accused of one burglary and one DUI, and the government conceded that the FBI record did not show multiple arrests for either offense. The court found this error significant because it could have caused the immigration judge to overestimate the seriousness of De Paz Sales’s past conduct.

The court also found that the immigration judge had not adequately considered alternatives to detention. Although the immigration judge discussed problems with De Paz Sales’s voluntary rehabilitation proposal, the decision did not address his acceptance into the SCRAM monitoring program or the possible effectiveness of mandatory counseling, rehabilitation, check-ins, or other monitoring programs.

Disposition

The court denied De Paz Sales’s motion for a temporary restraining order. It ordered that he receive another bond hearing by February 7, 2020, at which the immigration judge must reconsider dangerousness in light of the accurate arrest and conviction record and address alternatives to detention. The court expressed skepticism about whether the government could meet its burden based on the listed convictions and arrests but did not decide the ultimate outcome of the new bond hearing.