Echeverria v. Barr

Background

Juan Fredy Montoya Echeverria filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The opinion states that he is a citizen and national of El Salvador, entered the United States in 2011, and voluntarily surrendered to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in August 2019. He had been detained at Yuba County Jail under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

An immigration judge denied bond on October 24, 2019, based on dangerousness. Echeverria had also applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge later denied those applications and ordered his removal; his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was pending.

Echeverria reported hearing voices and received a psychological evaluation diagnosing schizophrenia and adjustment disorder. He argued that his mental-health condition, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the expected delay in his appeals justified release or another bond hearing. An immigration judge denied his request for a custody redetermination, finding that the alleged changed circumstances did not potentially affect the earlier dangerousness finding.

Related class action

Echeverria was a member of a provisionally certified class in a separate action concerning current Yuba County Jail detainees. That action required Immigration and Customs Enforcement to provide information and access to detainees and to facilitate expedited individual bail determinations in light of COVID-19 and jail conditions. Echeverria requested release in that action, but the request was denied, including a renewed request that was denied without prejudice.

Court’s analysis

The petition raised two due-process theories. First, Echeverria claimed that detention and the risk of COVID-19 violated substantive due process, meaning that the detention conditions themselves were constitutionally unacceptable. The court declined to consider that claim in this case because Echeverria had chosen to pursue the same relief in the related class action.

Second, Echeverria claimed that prolonged detention without another bond hearing violated procedural due process. The court applied the three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge, which considers the private interest affected, the government’s interest, and the value of additional procedures.

The court had previously found that Echeverria had a liberty interest in avoiding indefinite detention, but that the interest was not at its highest because he had been detained for about eight months and had received a detention hearing within the preceding six months. The court also found that Echeverria had not shown that another bond hearing would provide meaningful additional protection. It noted that the immigration judge had considered the evidence concerning his schizophrenia diagnosis and found no change affecting the prior dangerousness determination.

The court further noted that, because Echeverria was detained under § 1226(a), he could seek another bond redetermination at any time based on changed circumstances. The court concluded that due process did not entitle him to a new bond hearing at that time and, for the same reasons, denied his request for immediate release.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied Echeverria’s request for immediate release. The order does not state that either disposition was with or without prejudice.