Ararso U.M. v. Barr
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:19-cv-03046
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Ararso U.M. v. Barr, Judge Magnuson granted in part and denied in part a detention challenge, ordering an individualized bond hearing.
Ararso U.M., who was held in immigration detention, received an order requiring an individualized bond hearing. The immigration judge must conduct that hearing, and the government respondents remain involved in the case because the court denied the request to dismiss all respondents except Peter Berg.
What happened
Ararso U.M. v. Barr concerned Ararso U.M.’s detention while removal proceedings continued. The government argued that courts should not review detention under the immigration detention statute or consider the circumstances of the detention. Ararso U.M. also challenged the proposed burden of proof for a future detention hearing.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It ruled that the detention had become unreasonably prolonged and violated due process, so it granted the petition in part and required an immigration judge to provide a bond hearing within 30 days, or as soon as practicable given COVID-19-related problems. The immigration judge must make an individualized decision about whether detention is needed to protect the community or prevent flight. The court denied the petition in all other respects and denied the government’s request to remove most respondents from the case.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson declined to decide whether the burden of proof at the detention hearing would be constitutional because the immigration judge had not yet determined what burden would apply. The court said deciding that issue at that stage would be an advisory opinion.
The detailed version
- Ararso U.M. v. Barr · No. 0:19-cv-03046
- Paul Magnuson
- Mar. 25, 2020
Background
Ararso U.M. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The opinion states that his removal proceedings had continued for a prolonged period and that he had been brought back into detention after repeatedly violating conditions of supervised release into the United States.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a report and recommendation on March 10, 2020. The government objected, arguing that courts should not intervene in detention under § 1226(c), or at least should not conduct a fact-based review, because the statute ends detention when removal proceedings are completed. The government also argued that the magistrate judge should have treated a four-month delay caused by Ararso U.M.’s request for an extension as weighing in the government’s favor and should have considered the effect of his repeated violations of supervised-release conditions.
Ararso U.M. objected to the report and recommendation’s conclusion that an immigration judge should determine the applicable burden of proof at the detention hearing. He argued that the district court itself should decide whether that burden would comply with the Constitution.
Court’s Analysis
The court conducted the required fresh review of the portions of the report and recommendation challenged by specific objections and adopted the report and recommendation. It rejected the government’s argument that courts could never determine whether pre-removal detention under § 1226(c) had become unconstitutionally prolonged. The court also concluded that, even if the four-month period caused by Ararso U.M.’s extension request were discounted, his detention still exceeded the brief detention periods discussed in Demore v. Kim.
The court did not treat the repeated supervised-release violations as requiring a different result. It stated that the immigration judge should weigh those facts when deciding whether continued detention was necessary to prevent flight or protect the community.
The court declined to decide the constitutional validity of the burden of proof before the immigration judge had determined what burden would apply. It described Ararso U.M.’s request for an advance ruling on that issue as seeking an advisory opinion and declined to issue one.
The government also asked the court to dismiss all respondents except Peter Berg, the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office director. Because the court was resolving the petition, it denied that request without deciding whether the other respondents had been properly named.
Disposition
The court ordered that the report and recommendation be adopted. It granted in part and denied in part the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241.
The court granted the petition to the extent that Ararso U.M.’s ongoing detention had become unreasonably prolonged in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process. It ordered an immigration judge to provide a bond hearing within 30 days of the order, or as soon as practicable given COVID-19-related closures or logistical problems. At that hearing, the immigration judge must make an individualized determination about whether detention is necessary to protect the community or prevent Ararso U.M. from fleeing.
The court denied the petition in all other respects. It also denied the government’s request to dismiss respondents other than Peter Berg.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.