Ortiz Gomez v. Becerra

Background

Oscar Noe Ortiz Gomez, a noncitizen from El Salvador, was held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center. He had been detained for more than 20 months without an individualized determination of whether he posed a flight risk or danger. An immigration judge found that he had suffered past torture and was more likely than not to be tortured if returned to El Salvador, and granted him deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Department of Homeland Security appealed that decision, and the appeal remained pending.

Ortiz Gomez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a court to review the legality of a person’s detention. He sought immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing at which the government would have to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that the Northern District of California lacked jurisdiction because Ortiz Gomez was detained in the Eastern District of California.

Jurisdiction

The court denied the jurisdictional argument. It held that Moises Becerra, the director of ICE’s San Francisco Field Office, was a proper respondent because that office had primary authority over Ortiz Gomez’s arrest and detention, including operations at the Mesa Verde facility. The court therefore concluded that jurisdiction was proper in the Northern District of California even though Ortiz Gomez was physically detained in the Eastern District.

Merits

The court concluded that Ortiz Gomez’s continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Applying the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Ortiz Gomez had a strong liberty interest because of the length and uncertain duration of his detention, as well as evidence concerning his post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidality. The court determined that providing a bond hearing would not meaningfully undermine the government’s interest in detaining people who pose a danger or flight risk. Because Ortiz Gomez had received no bond hearing during his detention, the court also found that an additional procedural safeguard would have significant value.

The court further held that, at the bond hearing, the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that Ortiz Gomez is a flight risk or danger to the community before continuing his detention. The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the detention period was permissible because it resulted from Ortiz Gomez’s litigation decisions, including his pursuit of protection from removal.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered that Ortiz Gomez receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of the order. At that hearing, the Department of Homeland Security must meet the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard to continue his detention.