Cabanillas Lazo v. Decker
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-08513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cabanillas Lazo v. Decker, Judge Nathan ordered a new bond hearing or release because continued detention required stronger due-process protections.
The petitioner, Jim Marco Cabanillas Lazo, was entitled to a new individualized bond hearing or release. Respondents had to provide the hearing or release him within seven days.
What happened
In Cabanillas Lazo v. Decker, the petitioner challenged his continued immigration detention. The court reviewed the parties’ submissions concerning whether he was entitled to a new bond hearing.
The court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against unfair government action required a new bond hearing. At that hearing, the Government would have to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, and the Immigration Judge would have to consider the petitioner’s ability to pay bond and whether alternative release conditions were suitable.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the petition for a court order challenging detention. She did not require the petitioner to first pursue administrative remedies because doing so would have been futile. Respondents had seven days to provide the required hearing or release the petitioner, and the court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Cabanillas Lazo v. Decker · No. 1:19-cv-08513
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Jim Marco Cabanillas Lazo, the petitioner, challenged his continued immigration detention through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court procedure used to challenge unlawful detention. The opinion states that the court reviewed submissions from the parties but does not provide additional factual details about the petitioner’s detention or prior bond hearing.
Due-process ruling
The court concluded that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment required the petitioner to receive a new bond hearing. At that hearing:
- The Government must justify the petitioner’s continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. - The Immigration Judge must consider the petitioner’s ability to pay bond. - The Immigration Judge must consider whether alternative conditions of release are suitable.
Exhaustion
The Government argued that the petitioner had to exhaust, or complete, available administrative remedies before seeking relief in federal court. The court declined to impose that requirement. It explained that there was no statutory exhaustion requirement for a habeas petitioner challenging immigration detention and that exhaustion would be futile here. The court noted that the Board of Immigration Appeals had predetermined who bears the burden of establishing dangerousness or flight risk at a bond hearing and lacked authority to decide the petitioner’s constitutional due-process challenge.
Disposition
The court granted the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Within seven days of the order, Respondents had to either take the petitioner before an Immigration Judge for an individualized bond hearing consistent with the order or release him. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.