Oscar M. v. Garland

Background

Oscar M.-S. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure used to challenge unlawful custody. He alleged that his Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated during an immigration bond hearing because the immigration judge placed on him the burden of showing that he was not a flight risk or danger to the community. He sought immediate release or a new hearing requiring the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was dangerous.

A magistrate judge’s December 20, 2021 Report and Recommendation recommended granting the petition in part and ordering a new bond hearing at which the government would bear the burden of proof. The respondents objected and argued that the court should instead send the matter back to the immigration judge to determine whether Oscar M.-S. was subject to mandatory detention because of his state conviction.

Changed circumstances

When the Report and Recommendation was issued, Oscar M.-S.’s conviction for malicious punishment of a child was still on appeal. Three days later, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Because Oscar M.-S. did not seek review by the Minnesota Supreme Court within the applicable 30-day period, the district court determined that the conviction became final on January 27, 2022.

The court explained that federal immigration law requires detention in certain circumstances involving a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. It did not decide whether malicious punishment of a child qualifies as such a crime. Instead, it held that an immigration judge should first determine whether that issue makes Oscar M.-S. subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The Board of Immigration Appeals had also remanded Oscar M.-S.’s case to the immigration judge for further consideration of his eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Ruling

The court concluded that deciding the constitutional question about the burden of proof at the bond hearing would be premature because mandatory detention might apply. It therefore rejected the Report and Recommendation because of the change in Oscar M.-S.’s circumstances and did not reach the respondents’ other objections.

The order sustained the respondents’ objections in part, rejected the Report and Recommendation, and remanded the matter to the immigration judge for a custody hearing consistent with the order, to be held within 30 days. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright did not rule on whether Oscar M.-S.’s original bond hearing violated due process.