Cabrera Espinoza v. Becerra

Background

Adrian Cabrera Espinoza had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) since November 2022 while his removal proceedings remained pending. After nearly eleven months of civil detention, he filed a petition challenging his detention and sought preliminary relief requiring a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.

On December 20, 2023, the court granted his initial request for a preliminary injunction. It ordered the respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge, with the government required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention was warranted to protect the public or prevent Cabrera Espinoza from fleeing.

Immigration Judge Katie Mullins held the hearing on December 28, 2023. She found that Cabrera Espinoza did not pose a danger to the community but presented a flight risk that no amount of bond conditions could mitigate. Cabrera Espinoza then sought another preliminary injunction, arguing that the hearing violated his procedural due-process rights and asking the court to require a second hearing specifically addressing alternatives to detention.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction requires a showing that the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court said the second, third, and fourth factors favored Cabrera Espinoza, leaving the likelihood-of-success question as the deciding issue.

The court applied the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. That test considers the private interest involved, the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the likely value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interest.

Court’s analysis

The court recognized that Cabrera Espinoza’s liberty interest in freedom from detention was substantial. It nevertheless found that the other factors weighed against ordering a second hearing.

The court determined that its first order requiring a hearing on whether continued detention remained warranted already encompassed consideration of alternatives to detention. The immigration judge’s finding that no bond conditions could mitigate Cabrera Espinoza’s flight risk at least arguably included alternatives such as location monitoring and reporting. Cabrera Espinoza appeared with counsel and had a full opportunity to present evidence and arguments supporting release, including arguments about alternatives to detention.

The court distinguished cases in which officials had expressly refused to consider alternatives to detention. It concluded that the record did not show that Cabrera Espinoza had been prevented from presenting those arguments at his first hearing. As a result, the court found that an additional hearing would have little likely value and that the risk of an erroneous deprivation was minimal. It also found a substantial government and judicial interest in addressing all arguments concerning continued detention in one hearing rather than through repeated litigation.

Disposition

The court concluded that Cabrera Espinoza was unlikely to establish a procedural due-process right to another hearing requiring the immigration judge to consider alternatives to detention more expressly. Because he did not show a likelihood of success or a serious question on the merits, he did not satisfy the preliminary-injunction standard.

The court denied Cabrera Espinoza’s motion for a second preliminary injunction. The underlying detention challenge remained pending. The court directed Cabrera Espinoza to file his response to the government’s filing within 30 days after the order was filed.