Picazo v. Garland

Background

Oscar Rodriguez Picazo, a noncitizen from Mexico, was in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody while his removal proceedings continued. He had been detained since November 22, 2021—more than 20 months when he filed this case—and had not received an individualized determination of whether he posed a flight risk or danger to the community.

Picazo was placed in removal proceedings after being charged as removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He was subject to mandatory detention under section 1226(c). An immigration judge denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and he pursued review in the Ninth Circuit. Picazo also made several requests for release or custody review, but the court found that those reviews did not provide an individualized bond assessment based on flight risk or danger to the community.

Jurisdiction

Picazo filed a detention challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which allows federal district courts to review certain custody claims. The respondents argued that the Northern District of California lacked jurisdiction because Picazo was detained in the Eastern District of California. The court rejected that argument, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing jurisdiction over immigration-detention challenges that are independent of the merits of the removal order. The court also noted that the Director of the San Francisco ICE Field Office, a respondent, was within its jurisdiction.

Due Process and Bond Hearing

The court applied the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge to decide whether section 1226(c), as applied to Picazo, provided due process. The court found that Picazo had a strong liberty interest because he had been detained for more than 20 months with no reasonably certain end to his detention. It also found a substantial risk of an erroneous deprivation of that liberty because Picazo had never received an individualized bond hearing addressing the necessity of continued detention. The government’s interest in detaining people during removal proceedings did not outweigh the need for a hearing, because requiring a hearing would not meaningfully undermine detention of people who posed a flight risk or danger.

The court held that Picazo’s continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. It did not decide whether to adopt a categorical six-month rule requiring such a hearing for people detained under section 1226(c).

Burden of Proof

The court also ruled that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is warranted. Specifically, the government must show that Picazo is a flight risk or danger to the community. The court followed the reasoning of Singh v. Holder and concluded that it remained applicable to section 1226(c) cases involving a substantial liberty interest.

Disposition

The court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss and granted Picazo’s petition in part. It ordered the government to provide a constitutionally sufficient bond hearing before an immigration judge on or before September 5, 2023. If the immigration judge did not issue a decision by September 19, 2023, Picazo was required to be released from detention.