Umana Jovel v. Decker

Background

Ronal Umana Jovel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a person to challenge allegedly unlawful custody. He asked the court to order the respondents to provide a recorded, individualized hearing before a neutral decision-maker concerning his continued detention.

Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended granting the petition and ordering an individualized bond hearing by April 3, 2020. The recommendation also proposed requiring the government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence that Jovel posed a flight risk or danger to the public, and requiring the immigration judge to meaningfully consider alternatives to detention and Jovel’s ability to pay a monetary bond.

The opinion also noted that the court had previously ordered Jovel released on his own recognizance by April 3 unless the respondents provided a bond hearing by that date. Because of that order, Jovel’s later request for immediate release or for specific procedures at the upcoming hearing was moot.

Legal Standard

Because no party filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report, the district court reviewed it for clear error. The court found no clear error and considered the report’s analysis of whether Jovel’s continued detention without a renewed bond hearing violated due process.

The court applied five factors identified in the report: the length of detention; whether Jovel caused delays; whether he had asserted defenses to removal; whether his detention exceeded the time he had spent in prison for the convictions that led to the removal proceedings; and whether the detention facility was meaningfully different from a penal institution.

The court agreed with the report’s findings. Jovel had gone almost twice as long without a renewed bond hearing as the period previously deemed impermissible in another case. Although both sides contributed to delays, the court found that Jovel should not be penalized because there was no indication that he acted to delay proceedings or manipulate the system. His defenses to removal had not been decided and were not frivolous. The 972 days between his last bond hearing and his petition exceeded the 743 days he had spent in prison for the relevant criminal convictions. The court also agreed that his detention facility was not meaningfully different from a criminal detention facility, in part because it was used for criminal detention as well.

Ruling

The court held that detention without a bond hearing since May 2017 was unreasonable and unconstitutional. Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report in full, granted Jovel’s habeas petition, and ordered the respondents to provide him with an individualized bond hearing by April 3, 2020.