Ortiz Vargas v. Jennings

Background

Simon Ortiz Vargas filed a represented motion for a temporary restraining order against immigration officials. The opinion states that Vargas is a 42-year-old non-citizen from Mexico, married, and the father of four children. In 2010, he pleaded guilty in Fresno County Superior Court to a misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code section 273.5(a). After a later probation violation, he served a 90-day county-jail sentence.

In August 2019, immigration officials took Vargas into custody after he completed that sentence. While detained, he was hospitalized with life-threatening complications from severely uncontrolled diabetes. In December 2019, an immigration judge ordered his release on a $10,000 bond after finding that mandatory detention under section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act did not apply. Vargas posted the bond and was released.

In January 2020, the immigration judge reconsidered the earlier bond decision, revoked the bond, and found that Vargas's conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude, making him subject to mandatory detention under section 236(c). Vargas appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the appeal remained pending when the district court considered the temporary restraining order.

Requested relief and legal standard

Vargas sought narrow relief on whether he was entitled to a hearing before immigration officials re-arrested or re-detained him. He did not ask the court in this motion to decide whether he was actually subject to mandatory detention. The court applied the standard for a temporary restraining order, which requires consideration of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. Under the Ninth Circuit's alternative approach, relief may also issue when the plaintiff raises serious questions about the merits and the balance of hardships sharply favors the plaintiff.

Court's analysis

The court said Vargas had not shown a strong likelihood of success because no controlling authority expressly recognized a due-process right to a judicial hearing before immigration officials re-arrested or re-detained someone. But the court found that he had raised serious questions about a right to a pre-deprivation administrative hearing.

The court relied in part on persuasive reasoning from an earlier related proceeding involving re-arrest after release on bond. It found that Vargas had a substantial interest in remaining free on bond, including continuing to provide care and financial support for his family. The court also found a significant risk of an erroneous deprivation without the requested safeguard and a limited government interest in re-arresting him without a hearing, given the facts described in the opinion.

The court found that the balance of hardships sharply favored Vargas. Without relief, he could be returned to immigration custody, causing economic hardship to his family and depriving them of his care. The court also considered his prior diabetes-related hospitalization in immigration custody and the risk of COVID-19 exposure in detention. It found that the public interest also favored temporary relief.

Disposition

Judge Hamilton granted in part Vargas's motion for a temporary restraining order for 21 days, through September 14, 2020. During that period, the respondents were enjoined from re-detaining Vargas unless and until he received a pre-deprivation administrative hearing about whether his re-detention would be lawful.

Judge Hamilton denied in part the motion insofar as it sought a pre-deprivation judicial hearing before re-arrest or re-detention. The court also ordered the respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue and set deadlines for their response and Vargas's reply. The opinion's security discussion is incomplete in the provided text, so it does not establish the court's final ruling on that issue.