Omar M. v. Barr
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:18-cv-02646
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Omar M. v. Barr, Judge Ericksen required an immigration bond hearing but denied Omar M.’s request for immediate release.
Omar M. receives an individualized immigration bond hearing, while the federal respondents must arrange that hearing; the order does not require his immediate release.
What happened
Omar M. v. Barr concerned Omar M.’s challenge to his immigration detention. He asked the court either to release him or to require a hearing to decide whether he posed a flight risk or danger to the community.
The federal respondents objected to a recommendation that Omar M. receive a bond hearing. The court rejected their arguments that detention could continue until removal proceedings ended and that the factors used to evaluate prolonged detention were improper. The court concluded that Omar M.’s detention had lasted long enough to require an individualized hearing under the Constitution’s protection against unfair government action.
Judge Joan Ericksen adopted the recommendation and granted the petition in part and denied it in part. The court ordered an immigration judge to hold a bond hearing within thirty days to decide whether continued detention was necessary, but denied Omar M.’s request for immediate release.
The detailed version
- Omar M. v. Barr · No. 0:18-cv-02646
- Joan Ericksen
- July 2, 2019
Background
Omar M. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law allowing a person to challenge unlawful custody, seeking release from immigration detention or a bond hearing. The opinion states that he had been detained for more than two years and had received withholding of removal on September 28, 2018. A magistrate judge recommended that an immigration judge hold a bond hearing to determine whether Omar M.’s release would create a flight risk or danger to the community.
The federal respondents objected to that recommendation. They argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Demore v. Kim allowed detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) to continue while removal proceedings were pending because detention helps prevent flight, protect the community, and ensure appearance at proceedings.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected that argument because it read Demore as addressing only a brief period of detention. The court explained that prolonged detention under § 1226(c) must be evaluated based on the facts of the individual case to determine whether it remains reasonable under the Due Process Clause.
The respondents also argued that the magistrate judge should not have used the factors identified in Reid because the First Circuit later withdrew that decision. The court disagreed. It held that the factors still provided a reasonable framework for evaluating whether continued detention had become unreasonable, even though the earlier decision had been withdrawn. The court concluded that the magistrate judge properly applied those factors and that Omar M. was entitled to a bond hearing.
Disposition
The court overruled the federal respondents’ objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation. It granted in part and denied in part the petition for relief under § 2241:
- The court ordered an immigration judge to provide Omar M. with a bond hearing within thirty days. - At that hearing, the immigration judge must make an individualized decision about whether continued detention is necessary to protect the community or prevent Omar M. from fleeing during the immigration proceedings. - The court denied Omar M.’s request for immediate release.
Judge Joan Ericksen therefore required a bond hearing but did not order Omar M.’s immediate release.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.