Grewal v. Becerra

Background

Harjot Singh Grewal is a lawful permanent resident who immigrated to the United States from India at age 14. After he was convicted in 2020 of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and sentenced to six years in prison, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him when he was released early on May 4, 2022. The government charged him with removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act based on an aggravated-felony conviction.

An immigration judge ordered Grewal removed to India and denied his applications for relief from removal. His appeal was denied, and he later filed a petition for review and a motion to stay removal in the Ninth Circuit. His removal remained stayed while those matters were pending. At the time of this order, Grewal had been in civil immigration detention for more than 17 months without a bond hearing.

Grewal filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking for immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing at which the government would have to prove that continued detention was necessary by clear and convincing evidence.

Jurisdiction

The respondents argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Grewal was detained in the Eastern District of California. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that Moises Becerra, the director of ICE’s San Francisco Field Office, was a proper respondent because he had primary authority over Grewal’s arrest and detention. The court found that the evidence did not show that the officers located closer to the detention facility had authority to release Grewal.

Merits

The court explained that section 1226(c) generally requires detention of noncitizens who are removable because of certain criminal convictions and does not ordinarily provide for a bond hearing before an immigration judge. But the court also explained that prolonged detention can be challenged as applied to a particular person under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The court applied the three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge, considering Grewal’s private liberty interest, the government’s interest, and the value of additional procedural safeguards. It found that Grewal had a strong liberty interest because he had been detained for more than 17 months with no reasonably certain end to his detention. It concluded that requiring a bond hearing would not meaningfully undermine the government’s interest in removal because the removal stay would remain in effect and the government could continue detention if it proved flight risk or danger to the community. The court also found that a bond hearing would provide substantial additional protection because Grewal had received no such hearing during his detention.

The court therefore held that Grewal’s continued detention without a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due-process rights. It further held that the government had to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Grewal was a flight risk or danger to the community to justify continued detention.

Disposition

The court granted Grewal’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It declined to conduct the bond hearing itself and ordered that an immigration judge hold the hearing within 14 days of the order. The order did not direct Grewal’s immediate release; it required the Department of Homeland Security to meet the stated burden at the hearing to continue his detention.