Cruz-Zavala v. Barr

Background

Walter Cruz-Zavala, who was in civil immigration custody, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. He raised three claims: that his detention had become excessive and punitive under the Fifth Amendment; that his removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future; and that an immigration judge violated his statutory and regulatory rights by denying his request for a new bond hearing based on materially changed circumstances.

Cruz-Zavala had received a bond hearing on May 8, 2020. The immigration judge denied release after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Cruz-Zavala posed a danger to the community. Cruz-Zavala later sought another custody review, pointing to changes including acceptance into a six-month residential substance-abuse program, increased proposed supervision, and the anticipated length of his immigration proceedings. The immigration judge denied that request, finding that the changes were not material. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Cruz-Zavala’s appeals concerning his custody on February 26, 2021.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that Cruz-Zavala had exhausted the administrative remedies required before seeking federal habeas relief. It also held that it had jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims and legal questions concerning the bond process, even though federal law generally limits review of discretionary bond decisions.

The court rejected Cruz-Zavala’s claim that his continued detention violated due process because less restrictive alternatives were available. It held that his detention was authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and that the court could not substitute its judgment for the government’s discretionary detention decision.

The court also rejected Cruz-Zavala’s argument that his removal was not reasonably foreseeable. Unlike the individuals in cases involving detention after removal became legally or practically impossible, Cruz-Zavala had been ordered removed to El Salvador and faced no legal impediment to eventual removal. The court therefore held that his continued detention did not violate due process on that basis.

The court agreed with Cruz-Zavala that the immigration judge applied the wrong legal standard to his request for a new custody review under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e). The regulation permits a later bond redetermination upon a showing that the person’s circumstances have materially changed. The immigration judge instead defined a material change as one having a reasonable chance of changing the earlier custody decision and focused on whether the new evidence would change the danger determination. The court held that the immigration judge should have focused on whether the circumstances themselves had materially changed, without deciding how the evidence should ultimately be weighed.

Disposition

The court did not order Cruz-Zavala’s immediate release or decide that he was entitled to a new bond hearing. Instead, it ordered the immigration judge to reconsider the custody-redetermination request under the correct legal standard within 30 days. The court otherwise denied the requested relief and therefore granted in part and denied in part the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The court also granted Cruz-Zavala’s administrative motion for permission to supplement the record, noting that the supplemental exhibits did not change its rulings.