Rajnish v. Jennings

Background

Rajnish Rajnish, a citizen and native of India, entered the United States in January 2017 at age 16. After he was placed in immigration removal proceedings, he applied for asylum and withholding of removal. He later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor annoying or molesting a child under California Penal Code § 647.6(a), served part of a 240-day jail sentence, and was taken into immigration custody upon release from criminal custody in December 2019.

In April 2020, an immigration judge held a bond hearing and placed the burden on Rajnish to show that he should be released. The judge denied bond after finding that Rajnish was a flight risk and danger to the community. A psychologist testified that Rajnish likely had a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, was medically compliant, and posed a low risk of recidivism.

In July 2020, another immigration judge denied asylum but granted withholding of removal after finding that Rajnish had suffered political persecution in India and was likely to suffer it again if returned. The government appealed that decision, and Rajnish appealed the denial of asylum. Rajnish remained detained and presented evidence that his mental health was deteriorating. He had no later full bond hearing; an immigration judge declined to hold another hearing based on a finding that circumstances had not materially changed.

Issues and Analysis

Rajnish filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which permits a federal court to review custody allegedly violating the Constitution or federal law. The parties agreed that Rajnish was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was legally eligible for release on bond or conditional parole.

Burden of proof. Judge Orrick held that the April 2020 bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the immigration judge placed the burden on Rajnish to prove that he was not a flight risk or danger to the community. Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Singh v. Holder and related due-process principles, the court held that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified.

The court rejected the respondents’ argument that this rule applied only to a particular type of immigration bond hearing known as a Casas hearing. It also rejected their arguments that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez displaced Singh, that immigration detention receives different due-process treatment, and that other decisions supported placing the burden on the noncitizen. The court found that the burden placed on Rajnish could have affected the result because the record presented a plausible basis on which an immigration judge might have found that the government had not met its burden.

Need for another hearing after prolonged detention. Judge Orrick also held that Rajnish was entitled to another bond hearing under the three-part due-process balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. The court considered Rajnish’s strong interest in freedom from detention, the high risk of an erroneous continued detention without another hearing, and the government’s interest in detaining people who pose flight risks or dangers to the community. The court emphasized Rajnish’s nearly nine months of detention after the initial hearing, the unconstitutional burden allocation at that hearing, his withholding-of-removal determination, and the evidence of a possible mental illness and a treatment plan outside detention.

The court clarified that it was not holding that every person is automatically entitled to another hearing merely because more than six months have passed. Instead, it held that another hearing was required on the particular facts of Rajnish’s case. The court also stated that a COVID-19-related release process and administrative appeals did not replace an individualized bond hearing at which the government bears the burden of proof.

Disposition

The petition was GRANTED. The government was ORDERED to provide Rajnish with a bond hearing within 21 days of the order or release him if it failed to do so. The new hearing must comply with due process, including placing on the government the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Rajnish should remain detained because he is a flight risk or danger to the community. The court also AWARDED reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.