Landeros Jimenez v. Wolf

Background

Mario Landeros Jimenez had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since January 2019 while removal proceedings were pending. He had been arrested in Sacramento, California, pleaded guilty to acting as an accessory after the fact, and was sentenced to three years in custody. After his release from county custody for time served, immigration authorities detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).

Because of his history of schizophrenia, the immigration court spent several months deciding whether he was competent to represent himself. He later obtained counsel, conceded that he was removable, and sought asylum. The immigration judge denied his asylum application, and his appeal of that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending when this case was decided.

Landeros Jimenez requested a custody redetermination hearing and separately sought a bond hearing. The immigration judge denied both requests, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal of the bond-related decision. Landeros Jimenez then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court challenge to allegedly unlawful custody. He claimed that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Court’s analysis

The court held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2241 to consider constitutional challenges to detention under § 1226(c). It applied the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge: the person’s private interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interest.

The court concluded that Landeros Jimenez had a strong liberty interest in avoiding arbitrary or unreasonable imprisonment. It also found a high risk of an erroneous deprivation because he had received no bond or custody redetermination hearing during his roughly one-year detention. In the court’s view, a bond hearing would provide significant additional protection.

The respondents argued that continued detention served the government’s interest in ensuring Landeros Jimenez’s presence for removal and that his own choices had contributed to the length of detention. The court acknowledged the government’s interest but found that the asserted concerns about flight risk and dangerousness were speculative after such a lengthy detention. It also reasoned that Landeros Jimenez sought a bond hearing, not automatic release, and that a hearing would allow the government to address flight risk and danger to the community.

The court also held that Ninth Circuit precedent requiring the government to justify detention by clear and convincing evidence remained applicable. It rejected the argument that a later Supreme Court decision had made that precedent incompatible with higher authority.

Ruling and order

The court granted Landeros Jimenez’s petition as to his Fifth Amendment due-process claim. It ordered the respondents to release him from custody or provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 30 days of the order. At that hearing, the respondents must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. If the immigration judge does not issue a decision within 14 days of the hearing, Landeros Jimenez must be released. The parties were also ordered to file a joint status report by April 1, 2020, concerning his detention or release.