Hilario Pankim v. Barr

Background

Pascual Hilario Pankim, a citizen and national of Guatemala, had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Yuba County Jail since August 2019 under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). He was subject to a reinstated removal order and was pursuing immigration proceedings seeking protection from removal to Guatemala. An immigration judge denied his application for withholding of removal, and appeals concerning his removal and custody decisions were pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

In April 2020, an immigration judge held a custody hearing and ordered Pankim detained without bond. The judge found that the government had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Pankim was a danger to the community or a flight risk. The decision relied substantially on a February 2019 arrest report describing an alleged intoxication-related domestic disturbance in which family members and a family friend were reportedly injured. The criminal charges arising from that incident had been dismissed, and Pankim argued that the report was insufficient evidence. The immigration judge also considered Pankim’s prior misdemeanor battery conviction, immigration history, family ties, mental-health and alcohol-abuse issues, and proposed rehabilitation plan.

Pankim filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking for immediate release or a new bond hearing. He raised two due-process claims: one challenging the April 2020 custody decision and another arguing that detention during the COVID-19 pandemic was unsafe and inhumane because of his medical vulnerabilities and conditions at Yuba County Jail.

Jurisdiction and exhaustion

The respondents argued that the Northern District of California was not the proper forum because Pankim was held in the Eastern District of California. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the San Francisco Field Office oversaw immigration detainees at Yuba County Jail and that the director of that field office was the federal official most directly responsible for the facility. The court therefore held that the Northern District was the proper forum and that it had jurisdiction under § 2241.

The court recognized that the Ninth Circuit generally requires detainees to pursue available administrative and judicial remedies before seeking relief under § 2241. Pankim had not exhausted his remedies because two appeals were pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court nevertheless waived this prudential exhaustion requirement because Pankim’s mental-health condition and reported psychological effects from detention showed a likelihood of irreparable harm while he waited for administrative review.

Challenge to the bond determination

The respondents also argued that the court could not review the immigration judge’s bond decision. The court rejected that position, explaining that Pankim was detained under § 1231(a)(6), not § 1226, and that federal courts may review legal and constitutional challenges to the process used in making a custody decision even when they cannot reweigh the immigration judge’s discretionary judgment.

The court held that due process required the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Pankim was a flight risk or danger to the community. The court’s review was limited to whether the immigration judge committed a clear legal error or relied on insufficient evidence; it could not simply substitute its own assessment of the evidence.

The court concluded that the immigration judge did not violate due process by considering the February 2019 arrest report. Immigration custody proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence, and the report was detailed, specific, and probative. The court also found that the immigration judge considered the dismissed charges, Pankim’s partner’s contrary account, statements from family and friends, his family ties, and his rehabilitation plan. Because the government needed to establish either danger to the community or flight risk, the court did not need to decide whether the immigration judge separately established flight risk.

The court therefore denied in part Pankim’s petition because the April 2020 bond determination did not violate due process.

COVID-19 claim

The court found that Pankim was a member of the provisionally certified class in a related case concerning Yuba County Jail detainees and COVID-19 conditions. The related case provided for individual consideration of bail requests and involved the same underlying conditions and substantially the same release relief Pankim sought here.

To avoid duplicating efforts, the court stayed Pankim’s COVID-19 claim pending adjudication in that related class action. The court directed the parties to provide a joint status update concerning Pankim and the related proceedings within 30 days.

Disposition

The court denied in part the petition as to the challenge to the April 2020 bond determination and stayed the COVID-19 claim pending the related class action. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.