Rodriguez Sanchez v. Decker

Background

Amado Rodriguez Sanchez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged immigration detention. He argued that detention without an individualized review violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and requested release or a constitutionally adequate bond hearing.

Rodriguez Sanchez had been detained since December 14, 2017. The opinion states that he is a citizen of the Dominican Republic, has lived in the United States with his lawful permanent resident partner and two United States citizen children for about a decade, and worked as a landscaper for much of that time. Because of a controlled-substance conviction, he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).

The immigration proceedings were repeatedly delayed. The opinion attributes nearly all of the substantial delay, apart from an initial brief adjournment after Rodriguez Sanchez obtained pro bono counsel, to immigration officials or problems arranging physical or video production from detention. An immigration judge ultimately ordered him removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Rodriguez Sanchez then filed a petition for review and a motion for a stay of removal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; both remained pending when the district court ruled.

Whether the Petition Was Moot

The respondents argued that Rodriguez Sanchez’s administratively final removal order placed him under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 rather than § 1226 and that his petition was moot because it challenged detention under § 1226. Rodriguez Sanchez argued that his detention remained governed by § 1226 because his petition for review and stay motion were pending and the government followed a policy against removing people while those matters were pending.

The court concluded that Rodriguez Sanchez remained detained under § 1226(c). Relying on the Second Circuit’s reasoning that § 1231 applies when removal is imminent and certain, the court found that the pending review proceedings and the government’s forbearance policy created a substantive impediment to removal. The petition was therefore not moot.

Due Process and the Bond Hearing

The court applied a fact-based analysis to determine whether mandatory detention had become unreasonable. Relevant factors included the length of detention, responsibility for delay, whether the detainee had asserted defenses to removal, whether detention exceeded the time served for the conviction leading to removability, and whether the detention facility was meaningfully different from a criminal detention institution.

The court held that Rodriguez Sanchez’s detention had become unreasonable and unconstitutional. He had been detained for more than two years, substantially longer than the six months the court treated as presumptively reasonable. The court also emphasized that most of the delay was attributable to immigration officials, that his asylum application had been pending for much of the period, that he was seeking review in the Second Circuit, and that he had primarily been held in a criminal-detention facility.

Required Hearing Procedures

The court ordered a bond hearing before an immigration judge. It held that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Rodriguez Sanchez presents a flight risk or danger to the community to justify continued detention. The immigration judge must also consider Rodriguez Sanchez’s ability to pay and alternative conditions of release when setting bond.

Disposition

The court granted Rodriguez Sanchez’s petition and denied his request for oral argument because it resolved the petition on the papers. Respondents were ordered to provide a bond hearing consistent with the opinion within seven calendar days. If they failed to do so, they were required to release him immediately. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.