Singh v. Barr

Background

Ronald Singh, a Fiji citizen who entered the United States as an infant and was later granted asylum, had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since July 6, 2018. He was being held at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility and, during these proceedings, at the Federal Detention Center in Honolulu. He faced removal based on a California aggravated-felony conviction. His removal case remained under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had stayed his removal.

Singh filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. He asserted two Fifth Amendment claims: that his prolonged detention and the denial of a constitutionally adequate bond hearing violated procedural due process, and that his detention conditions exposed him to an excessive risk from COVID-19, violating substantive due process. He moved for a temporary restraining order, or TRO, an emergency order intended to prevent irreparable harm until the court could consider longer-term relief.

Standing and Exhaustion

The respondents argued that Singh lacked standing to pursue his COVID-19 claim because neither detention facility had a confirmed COVID-19 case and officials had taken sanitation, screening, testing, and isolation measures. The court rejected that argument. It found that Singh had shown a concrete and particularized injury because the conditions of his detention placed him at heightened risk of exposure, including because the record did not show that he could meaningfully practice social distancing.

The respondents also argued that Singh had not exhausted available administrative remedies because his appeal from the immigration judge’s bond decision remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court explained that exhaustion for a § 2241 petition is generally a prudential requirement rather than a jurisdictional one. It waived that requirement because the constitutional challenge exceeded the immigration agency’s authority, Singh had been detained for about 20 months, and waiting for an agency decision could cause irreparable harm.

Procedural Due Process Claim

The court concluded that Singh was likely to succeed on his argument that the immigration judge incorrectly determined that Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security no longer applied after Jennings v. Rodriguez. The court held that Casas-Castrillon remained binding because it was not clearly irreconcilable with Jennings. Under Casas-Castrillon, detention authority generally shifts from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) to discretionary detention under § 1226(a) after the Board issues a final removal order while judicial review remains pending.

However, the immigration judge had also denied bond on the alternative ground that the Department of Homeland Security proved Singh was dangerous to the community. The court held that Singh had not shown a likelihood of success on his challenge to that decision for purposes of the TRO. The court found that, apart from one statement, the immigration judge consistently treated the government as having the burden of proof, and that the judge had considered Singh’s criminal history, the passage of time, his sobriety, treatment, rehabilitation efforts, and proposed release plan. To the extent Singh sought to have the federal court reweigh the evidence, the court said that issue was outside its authority to review in a detention challenge.

Substantive Due Process Claim

The court held that Singh had shown that his detention conditions posed a serious health risk violating his Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights. Civil detainees may not be subjected to conditions that amount to punishment. Singh asserted that he had high blood pressure, a history of smoking, obesity, and latent tuberculosis. Although he did not provide medical records confirming all of those conditions, the respondents did not refute his assertion that he had been diagnosed with high blood pressure and prescribed medication. The court also noted evidence that hypertension was associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes and that Singh could not meaningfully practice social distancing in detention.

The court found that Singh had shown likely irreparable harm without emergency relief. It balanced the government’s interest in protecting the community and ensuring Singh’s appearance against the health and security concerns associated with a COVID-19 outbreak in detention facilities. The court concluded that reasonable release conditions could address the government’s concerns.

Disposition

The court granted in part Singh’s motion for a TRO. It ordered that Singh be released once an order establishing release conditions was issued. Anticipated conditions included residing and sheltering in place at a specified address, leaving only for medical care, immigration proceedings, or compliance with a Department of Homeland Security order, and not using alcohol, illegal drugs, firearms, destructive devices, or other dangerous weapons.

The parties were ordered to submit a joint statement proposing additional release conditions and a date for Singh’s return to ICE custody. The TRO was to expire on May 4, 2020, unless the parties stipulated to a different return date. If they could not agree, the respondents were required to show cause why the TRO should not be converted into a preliminary injunction lasting through California’s shelter-in-place order. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order.