Cruz v. Decker

Background

Wilder Cruz, a lawful permanent resident, had been detained at the Hudson County Correctional Center since October 10, 2017, under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). After 385 days without a bond hearing, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking the court either to release him on his own recognizance or to order a bond hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

Cruz named Thomas Decker, James McHenry, Kirstjen Nielsen, and Jefferson B. Sessions as respondents. The government moved to dismiss or transfer the case to the District of New Jersey, arguing that Cruz’s immediate custodian was the warden of the facility where he was detained and that only the court in that district could hear the petition.

Magistrate Judge Wang’s rulings

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang denied the motion to dismiss or transfer, concluding that the immediate-custodian issue concerned venue—the proper location for the case—rather than whether the case could proceed in federal court. She found evidence that Immigration and Customs Enforcement retained substantial physical, day-to-day control over Cruz at the detention center. She therefore concluded that Decker, the director of ICE’s New York City field office, was a proper respondent and that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York.

In a separate report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Wang recommended granting Cruz’s petition. Applying a fact-specific test, she concluded that Cruz’s continued detention without a bond hearing was unreasonable and violated due process. She recommended that the government promptly present Cruz to an immigration judge for a bond hearing and bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he was a flight risk or danger to the community.

District court’s review

Judge Daniels reviewed the government’s objections to both rulings. He held that the motion to dismiss or transfer was a nondispositive venue matter, meaning it did not decide the underlying claim or prevent Cruz from refiling in another court. Because it was nondispositive, Magistrate Judge Wang properly resolved it in an opinion and order, and the district court reviewed it for clear error or a legal mistake.

Judge Daniels affirmed that ruling. He explained that, although the usual immediate custodian in a detention case is the warden of the detention facility, the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit had not conclusively resolved who serves as the proper custodian in immigration cases. The evidence described ICE’s role in detention operations, including physical presence, work-eligibility decisions, and involvement in investigations. The court therefore found no clear error in treating Decker as the proper respondent.

Due-process ruling

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s report and recommendation in full. It agreed that Cruz’s nearly two years of detention without an initial bond hearing was unreasonably long. It also agreed that delays attributed to Cruz did not justify the remaining period of detention, particularly because he was pursuing available forms of relief and had asserted defenses to removal. The court noted that Cruz had been detained longer than he had been incarcerated for his two prior criminal offenses and under similar conditions.

The court distinguished between the statutory rules governing detention and the separate constitutional question whether continued detention had become unreasonable. It held that Cruz’s continued detention did not satisfy due-process requirements. At the required bond hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Cruz is not entitled to release because he presents a flight risk or danger to the community.

Disposition

The court overruled the government’s objections to Magistrate Judge Wang’s opinion and affirmed that opinion. It denied the government’s objections to the report and recommendation, adopted the report, and granted Cruz’s petition. The opinion ordered a bond hearing; it did not order Cruz’s immediate release.