Arana v. Barr
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-07924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 18
In Arana v. Barr, Judge Gardephe ordered a bond hearing by April 7, 2020, or Pedro Arana’s release from immigration custody.
Pedro Arana, who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was entitled to a bond hearing by April 7, 2020, or release on his own recognizance. The respondents had to meet the specified burden at the hearing and provide private access to counsel beforehand.
What happened
In Arana v. Barr, Pedro Arana challenged his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had lasted more than 20 months without a bond hearing. Arana is a lawful permanent resident with asthma and serious mental-health conditions, and he argued that the length and conditions of his detention violated due process.
The government argued that the factors used to assess prolonged immigration detention did not apply or had been wrongly analyzed. It also opposed requiring the government to prove continued detention by clear and convincing evidence and argued that Arana should not be released before a bond hearing. Arana asked the court to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation for expedited relief, citing the COVID-19 outbreak at the jail and his health condition.
Judge Gardephe held that Arana’s detention had become unreasonable and ordered the government to provide an individualized bond hearing by April 7, 2020. If no hearing occurred by then, the government had to release Arana on his own recognizance; before any hearing, he had to receive at least one private hour with counsel. The immigration judge also had to consider alternatives to detention and Arana’s ability to pay, while the government had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention was necessary.
The detailed version
- Arana v. Barr · No. 1:19-cv-07924
- Paul Gardephe
- Apr. 3, 2020
Background
Pedro Arana filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention and seeking a bond hearing. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had detained him since July 31, 2018, after placing him in removal proceedings. At the time of the order, he had been detained for more than 20 months without a bond hearing.
Arana is a 63-year-old lawful permanent resident who suffers from asthma, severe depression, and auditory hallucinations. He had pleaded guilty to attempted arson in the third degree after setting a fire during a suicide attempt. He was sentenced to time served and five years of probation. He also had a pending direct appeal concerning his conviction and intended to challenge the validity of his guilty plea.
Arana sought expedited relief because COVID-19 was present at the Bergen County Jail, where he was detained. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman recommended an expedited bond hearing and, alternatively, release if a hearing was not held by a specified date. The respondents objected.
Legal standard and analysis
The district court reviewed the parts of Judge Freeman’s report and recommendation to which the respondents objected. The court applied the five factors commonly used in the Southern District of New York to determine whether detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) had become unreasonably prolonged: the length of detention; responsibility for delay; defenses to removal; whether immigration detention exceeded the time served for the underlying offense; and whether the detention facility was meaningfully different from a criminal jail.
The court agreed that the factors overwhelmingly favored Arana. His more-than-20-month detention without a bond hearing was unreasonable. Although some delay resulted from adjournment requests, other delays were outside his control, including a three-month wait before counsel was appointed and a mumps outbreak that interfered with communication. The court therefore treated responsibility for delay as neutral. Arana had asserted defenses to removal, and the court stated that it did not need to assess their strength. His immigration detention exceeded the period of imprisonment imposed for the arson offense, and he was held in a facility that also housed people facing criminal charges.
The court rejected the respondents’ argument that it should not use this multi-factor analysis. It also required that, at the bond hearing, the respondents prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention was necessary because Arana posed a flight risk or danger to the community. The immigration judge had to consider less restrictive alternatives to detention and Arana’s ability to finance any bond.
COVID-19 and release before the hearing
Judge Freeman had recommended that Arana be released immediately before the bond hearing under the court’s limited authority to release a habeas petitioner in extraordinary circumstances. Judge Gardephe did not order immediate release. Instead, the court found that the respondents’ plan to conduct bond hearings by videoconference provided some evidence that a hearing could occur quickly.
Order
The court granted the petition to the extent that the respondents had to produce Arana before an immigration judge for an individualized bond hearing by April 7, 2020, or release him on his own recognizance that day. Before any hearing, the respondents had to ensure that Arana could speak privately with counsel in person or by telephone for at least one hour. The court adopted Judge Freeman’s report and recommendation to that extent.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.