Pham v. Becerra

Background

Hung Phi Pham was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), a federal law requiring detention of certain noncitizens with specified criminal convictions during removal proceedings. Pham had been convicted under California Penal Code § 289(e) and sentenced to 364 days in county jail. He later applied for U.S. citizenship, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained him in January 2023.

An immigration judge initially determined that Pham was not entitled to a bond hearing. Pham filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a request for court relief from allegedly unlawful custody, and argued that the Fifth Amendment’s due process protection required a bond hearing. The court issued a temporary restraining order requiring a hearing within five days. After that hearing, an immigration judge ordered Pham’s release on a minimum bond of $1,500.

Jurisdiction

The Government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Pham had been detained in the Eastern District of California and because another immigration official located there was the proper respondent. The court rejected those arguments. It held that the district-of-confinement rule did not apply to this immigration case and that Moises Becerra, the director of ICE’s San Francisco Field Office, was the proper respondent because he exercised control over Pham’s custody through the relevant chain of command.

Due Process Ruling

The court applied the three factors from Mathews v. Eldridge: Pham’s private interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation under the existing procedures, and the Government’s interests and administrative burdens.

The court held that Pham had a protected liberty interest in freedom from physical restraint. It found a significant risk of erroneous detention without a hearing because the record did not show that Pham posed a danger to society or a flight risk, and an immigration judge had released him on bond. The court also found that the Government’s interest in detaining Pham without a hearing was low because requiring a hearing would not prevent the Government from detaining people who pose a danger or flight risk.

Balancing those factors, the court held that detaining Pham without a bond hearing violated due process. The court also ruled that, at the constitutionally required hearing, the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Pham’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It permanently enjoined the defendants from detaining Pham under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), based on criminal convictions predating the order, for more than five days without a bond hearing at which the Government bears the burden of justification by clear and convincing evidence.