Landeros Jimenez v. Wolf

Background

Mario Landeros Jimenez, a Mexican citizen, was arrested in Sacramento, California, in January 2018 with his brother for possession of 47 pounds of methamphetamine for sale. In January 2019, he pleaded no contest to acting as an accessory after the fact. He was released from county jail for time served and was then taken into custody by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which placed him in removal proceedings and detained him at the Mesa Verde Detention Center.

An immigration judge denied Landeros Jimenez’s asylum application and ordered his removal on October 1, 2019. His appeal of that order remained pending. Landeros Jimenez later asked the district court to review his continued detention, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated constitutional and statutory rights. On January 30, 2020, the court granted that petition and ordered respondents to provide a bond or custody redetermination hearing. The court required respondents to justify continued detention with clear and convincing evidence.

At the February 26, 2020, custody hearing, the immigration judge ordered continued detention without bond, finding that respondents had shown Landeros Jimenez was both dangerous and a flight risk. The judge did not issue a written decision. Landeros Jimenez then moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that respondents had failed to meet the required burden.

Jurisdiction and exhaustion

Respondents argued that federal law barred the court from reviewing the immigration judge’s discretionary bond decision. The court rejected that argument, explaining that it had authority to review constitutional claims and legal questions, including whether the minimum requirements of due process had been met.

Respondents also argued that the court should wait for a written immigration-judge decision or for the Board of Immigration Appeals to decide Landeros Jimenez’s appeal. The court held that administrative exhaustion—a requirement to complete agency review before seeking court review—would be futile and would cause irreparable harm in this case. The parties had provided the evidence considered at the custody hearing, no further fact-finding was necessary, and the remaining issue was whether the correct burden of proof had been applied. The court also noted that Landeros Jimenez had been detained for almost one and a half years and that respondents could not estimate when the appeal or written decision would be completed.

Temporary restraining order

A temporary restraining order uses the same general standard as a preliminary injunction. The moving party must show likely success on the merits, irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that relief serves the public interest. Because the requested order required respondents to take affirmative action, Landeros Jimenez had to show that the law and facts clearly favored his position.

The court found that respondents had not proved dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. They submitted conviction documents, a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department arrest report, and the immigration judge’s removal order. The court concluded that these materials did not satisfy the required burden. The conviction involved acting as an accessory after the fact to his brother’s possession of methamphetamine for sale; the arrest report did not indicate violence or describe Landeros Jimenez’s conduct; and the record apparently showed no criminal history beyond that conviction.

The court also rejected reliance on the immigration judge’s finding that the conviction was a particularly serious crime. The court explained that a particularly serious crime is not the same as proof that someone is dangerous or likely to flee. It further found that respondents had not shown that alternatives to detention would be inadequate. The immigration judge’s statement that bond was inappropriate because Landeros Jimenez would not be able to remain in the United States did not establish that less restrictive alternatives were insufficient.

The court found a strong likelihood that Landeros Jimenez would succeed on the merits, ongoing irreparable harm from the deprivation of due process and unlawful detention, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored him. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins therefore granted Landeros Jimenez’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The court ordered respondents to release him immediately under appropriate supervision, including possible electronic monitoring and reporting requirements.