Darboe v. Decker
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-11393
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Darboe v. Decker, Judge Ramos ordered respondents to answer Darboe’s request for release while his immigration detention petition remains pending.
Ousman Darboe, who was detained in immigration custody, and the respondents directed to answer his request for release.
What happened
In Darboe v. Decker, Ousman Darboe’s attorneys asked the court to release him from immigration detention while his petition challenging that detention was pending. They pointed to his 30-month detention, family hardships, and a pardon of his only criminal conviction.
The attorneys argued that the court had authority to order release under a federal appeals court decision involving release during a detention challenge. They also described Darboe’s constitutional and statutory claims, including challenges to his bond hearing and prolonged detention.
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide whether Darboe should be released or whether his claims were valid. Instead, the court directed the respondents to respond to the letter by February 13, 2020.
The detailed version
- Darboe v. Decker · No. 1:19-cv-11393
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 7, 2020
Background
Ousman Darboe, through attorneys from the Immigrant Rights Clinic and Washington Square Legal Services, asked the court to order his immediate release from immigration detention while his petition challenging that detention remained pending. The request relied on a federal appeals court decision recognizing a federal court’s authority to set bail during a detention challenge when the petition raises substantial claims and extraordinary circumstances make release necessary for the court’s eventual remedy to be effective.
The letter stated that Darboe had been detained for about 30 months and that his petition challenged the adequacy of his bond hearing, the length of his detention, his arrest, and possible transfer outside the New York Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office. The letter also described family and economic hardships, including separation from his wife and young child. It stated that the Governor of New York granted Darboe a full and unconditional pardon of his only criminal conviction on February 3, 2020.
Arguments in the Letter
Darboe’s attorneys argued that his petition raised substantial constitutional and statutory claims and that he had shown a likelihood of success on the merits. They cited an earlier decision by Judge Ramos concerning the burden at a detention hearing and decisions from other courts addressing prolonged detention.
The attorneys also argued that extraordinary circumstances supported release. They cited the length of Darboe’s detention, his family’s circumstances, the effects of separation on his child, economic hardship, and the pardon. The letter stated that the government contested venue and personal jurisdiction but did not argue that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Court’s Action
The text does not show a ruling on the request for release, the petition’s claims, venue, or personal jurisdiction. The court’s action was to direct the respondents to respond to the letter by February 13, 2020. Thus, the court did not grant or deny release in the supplied text.
Result
The supplied document is a petitioner’s request accompanied by a short court order directing a response. It does not establish the ultimate outcome of Darboe’s request or petition.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.