Rodriguez Diaz v. Barr

Background

Aroldo Alberto Rodriguez Diaz filed a petition for habeas corpus, a procedure used to challenge unlawful detention, and sought a temporary restraining order against William P. Barr, Chad Wolf, David Jennings, and Wendell Anderson. He argued that his detention without another custody hearing was unconstitutional and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. He requested immediate release or, alternatively, a custody hearing at which the government would have to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence that he was dangerous or likely to flee.

Rodriguez Diaz had been in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody since December 18, 2018. An immigration judge denied bond at a February 2019 hearing after finding that he was a danger to the community. In February 2020, Rodriguez Diaz requested a new hearing, citing the vacatur of a controlled-substance conviction and his rehabilitation efforts. The immigration judge denied that request, finding no material change in circumstances and giving little weight to Rodriguez Diaz's statements that he was no longer active in a gang.

Jurisdiction and exhaustion

The court concluded that it had jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional challenges to the denial of a new bond hearing, but not to second-guess the immigration judge's discretionary weighing of evidence. The court also waived the usual requirement that Rodriguez Diaz complete administrative appeals first. It found that the Board of Immigration Appeals could not decide his constitutional arguments and that continued detention without a hearing could cause irreparable harm.

Merits

The court held that Rodriguez Diaz's detention had become prolonged. He had been detained for approximately 16 months, and nearly 14 months had passed since his last bond hearing. After balancing his strong private interest in liberty against the government's interests, the court concluded that due process required another bond hearing.

The court did not order immediate release. It found that Rodriguez Diaz had not shown, on the record before it, that he was not a flight risk or danger to the community as a matter of law. The immigration judge had not yet conducted a hearing at which the government would bear the burden of proving continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. The court also found that Rodriguez Diaz had not shown the specific or immediate harm needed for release based on COVID-19 concerns; the opinion states that he had no underlying medical conditions and that Yuba County Jail had no suspected or confirmed cases as of April 23, 2020.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the petition and granted in part and denied in part the temporary restraining order. It ordered the government to provide Rodriguez Diaz with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 21 days of the order. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Rodriguez Diaz is a flight risk or danger to the community. The court denied in part the petition and temporary restraining order as to immediate release, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and closed the matter. The court also denied as moot the government's objections to specific evidence supporting the COVID-19 arguments.