Sahota v. Allen

Background

Deepak Sahota had been held in immigration custody since October 2017 under the mandatory-detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), based on a domestic-violence conviction that the government treated as an aggravated felony. He had been a lawful permanent resident since February 23, 2007. The opinion states that Sahota had schizoaffective disorder, depressive type, auditory and visual hallucinations, and limited intellectual and cognitive functioning.

An immigration judge initially determined that Sahota qualified for protection under the Convention Against Torture, but the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered him removed to India. The Ninth Circuit later remanded the matter to the Board by agreement of the parties. The opinion states that the timing of further Board review was uncertain.

Sahota’s last bond hearing was on June 6, 2018. The immigration judge denied bond after finding that Sahota was a danger. Sahota later sought release and another custody hearing, but those requests were denied.

COVID-19 claim

Sahota argued that his detention during the COVID-19 pandemic violated substantive due process—the constitutional protection against government detention that is fundamentally unjust—because his mental-health conditions, cognitive limitations, smoking history, and other circumstances allegedly placed him at increased risk of serious illness.

The court declined to separately consider that claim because Sahota was a member of a provisional class in a related case addressing release from the same facilities based on COVID-19 risks and similar health conditions. The court stated that Sahota’s recourse was to seek clarification or reconsideration in that related proceeding rather than seek the same relief before a different judge. It therefore denied without prejudice Sahota’s claim for habeas relief based on COVID-19.

Prolonged-detention claim

Sahota also argued that his detention, which had lasted more than two and a half years, violated procedural due process—the requirement for fair procedures before the government deprives someone of a protected liberty interest. The government argued that the court should not hear the claim because Sahota had not appealed earlier bond decisions and because his removal proceedings remained pending.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that exhaustion of administrative remedies for this type of habeas claim is generally a prudential requirement rather than a jurisdictional one, meaning the court may excuse it in appropriate circumstances. The court found that Sahota’s recently diagnosed mental-health conditions, the potential risks associated with COVID-19, the length of his detention, the time since his last bond hearing, and the remand to the Board supported excusing exhaustion.

Applying the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court considered Sahota’s private interest, the government’s interest, and whether additional procedural protections would add value. The court concluded that Sahota was entitled to another bond hearing with the required procedural protections. It did not order immediate release, stating that a prompt bond hearing was the usual remedy in similar circumstances.

Disposition

The court granted Sahota’s petition to the extent that the government was ordered to provide a bond hearing with the required procedural protections within 30 days of the order. If the government failed to hold the hearing within that period, it was ordered to release Sahota. The court denied without prejudice Sahota’s claim for habeas relief based on COVID-19.