Diaz Oropeza v. Becerra

Background

Benjamin Diaz Oropeza is a noncitizen from Mexico who was in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody while his removal proceedings continued. He became a lawful permanent resident in 1990. After California convictions in 2019 and 2020 involving assault, the Department of Homeland Security charged him as removable based on an aggravated-felony conviction and detained him on June 23, 2021.

Diaz had been detained for more than 22 months when he filed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute allowing a court to review whether a person is being held unlawfully. He had not received a custody redetermination or bond hearing. Diaz asked for release unless the government scheduled an individualized hearing at which it would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a danger or flight risk.

Diaz appeared without a lawyer during his administrative immigration proceedings for a substantial period and later obtained assistance from pro bono counsel. His removal case involved applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal, and related proceedings remained pending before the Ninth Circuit and the Board.

Jurisdiction and Venue

The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the petition belonged only in the federal district where Diaz was confined, the Eastern District of California. It also argued that the facility warden was the proper respondent rather than Moises Becerra, the Field Office Director of ICE’s San Francisco Field Office. Alternatively, the government sought transfer to the Eastern District.

The court held that it had jurisdiction because Diaz was challenging his immigration detention as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, independently of the merits of his removal order. It also concluded that the Northern District of California was the proper forum and that Becerra, who had ultimate control over the detention facility, was the proper respondent for this petition. The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss.

Merits

The parties agreed that Diaz was detained under the mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and had been held for more than 22 months without a bond hearing. The court rejected Diaz’s request for an automatic rule granting a hearing after six months, finding no controlling authority establishing that bright-line rule after the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez.

Instead, the court applied the three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge. That test considers the private interest affected, the government’s interest, and whether additional procedures would reduce the risk of an incorrect deprivation of rights.

The court found that Diaz had a strong liberty interest because of the length and uncertain endpoint of his detention. It rejected the government’s argument that Diaz’s requests for continuances and litigation activity made his detention principally his own choice, noting that he had represented himself for much of the removal proceedings and had sought continuances to obtain counsel.

The court found the government’s interest factor neutral at best. Although the government had interests in public safety and preventing flight, the requested hearing would determine whether Diaz actually posed a danger or flight risk and would not meaningfully undermine the government’s immigration-enforcement interests.

The court found that an additional hearing would provide substantial protection against an erroneous detention decision. The original custody decision had been made in June 2021, when Diaz was representing himself, and Diaz asserted that he had since obtained counsel, social-work assistance, and new evidence relevant to his immigration applications and the circumstances of his conviction. That evidence had not been evaluated by a neutral decisionmaker in determining whether continued detention was necessary.

Disposition

The court concluded that Diaz’s continued detention without a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. It granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered that an immigration judge provide Diaz with a bond hearing within 14 days of the order. At the hearing, the Department of Homeland Security must establish by clear and convincing evidence that Diaz is a flight risk or danger to the community in order to continue his detention.