Chuol P.M. v. Garland

Background

Chuol P.M. filed a petition challenging his immigration detention. A magistrate judge previously recommended granting the petition and releasing him while the government pursued his removal. That recommendation concluded that Chuol P.M. had been subject to a final removal order for an extended period, that removal was not substantially likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that continued detention would violate due process.

The circumstances later changed. The Board of Immigration Appeals had determined that Chuol P.M.’s Iowa second-degree robbery conviction was an aggravated-felony crime of violence that made him removable. During an appeal, however, the government filed an unopposed motion to return the matter to the Department of Homeland Security for further consideration. The government acknowledged that the relevant Iowa statutes could allow a robbery conviction involving only offensive touching. The Court of Appeals granted that motion.

Bond hearing

The parties agreed that Chuol P.M. was then detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which applies to certain people charged with removability because of specified criminal convictions. They also agreed that, under a multi-factor test, he was entitled to a custody hearing before an immigration judge.

The court further held that due process requires the government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence at that hearing. The parties could present evidence and argument about whether Chuol P.M. posed a danger to the community or was likely to flee if released. The court did not add a separate requirement concerning consideration of Chuol P.M.’s ability to pay because existing immigration precedent already appeared to require that consideration.

Ruling

Judge Menendez declined to adopt the earlier Report and Recommendation because of the changed circumstances. She granted the petition in part and ordered the respondents to ensure that Chuol P.M. received an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 21 days. If no hearing occurred, Chuol P.M. had to be released unless the court issued a further order. At the hearing, continued detention could be authorized only if the government met its burden by clear and convincing evidence.