Sahota v. Allen
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-03180
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sahota v. Allen, Judge Orrick denied Sahota’s motion to enforce a prior bond-hearing order, finding no jurisdiction over his challenge to the immigration judge’s decision.
Deepak Sahota’s request to enforce the prior bond-hearing order was denied, and the immigration judge’s denial of release on bond was not disturbed by this order.
What happened
In Sahota v. Allen, the court had previously ordered a bond hearing for Deepak Sahota after finding that his detention had lasted too long. Sahota received a hearing, was represented by counsel, and argued that he should be released.
The immigration judge found that the government had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Sahota posed a danger to the community and denied release on bond. Sahota asked the court to enforce its earlier order, arguing that the hearing lacked required protections, including consideration of alternatives to detention and the length of his detention.
The court denied the motion, concluding that the required procedural protections were provided and that Sahota was challenging the immigration judge’s discretionary decision rather than identifying a constitutional or legal error. Judge Orrick also stated that the court lacked jurisdiction to review that discretionary decision.
The detailed version
- Sahota v. Allen · No. 3:20-cv-03180
- William Orrick
- Oct. 19, 2020
Background
The court previously granted in part Sahota’s emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request challenging the legality of his detention. The court denied without prejudice his request for relief related to COVID-19 but granted relief based on his unduly prolonged detention. It ordered that Sahota receive a bond hearing with appropriate procedural protections within 30 days or be released.
A hearing took place on June 25, 2020. Sahota was represented by counsel, who presented arguments and evidence supporting release on bond. On June 30, 2020, the immigration judge found that the Department of Homeland Security had proved that Sahota was a danger to the community and denied his request for release.
Arguments
Sahota moved to enforce the court’s earlier order. He argued that the hearing and the immigration judge’s decision violated due process because the immigration judge allegedly failed to require the government to prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, failed to consider alternatives to detention, and failed to account for the length of Sahota’s detention.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Sahota was seeking relief from the immigration judge’s discretionary evaluation of the evidence and decision that he should remain detained, rather than relief for the denial of a constitutional right. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review that type of claim.
The court also stated that the hearing provided the required procedural protections. It found that the immigration judge held the government to the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, found continued dangerousness based on evidence concerning Sahota’s criminal and probation history, and expressly considered Sahota’s evidence of rehabilitation and family support. The immigration judge also acknowledged the length of Sahota’s confinement. The court characterized Sahota’s argument as a request that the immigration judge exercise discretion differently, which the court said was a matter for the Board of Immigration Appeals rather than the district court.
Disposition
The court denied Sahota’s motion to enforce. It also vacated the hearing scheduled for October 21, 2020, stating that the matter was appropriate for resolution on the papers.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.