Sophia v. Decker
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-09599
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Sophia v. Decker, Judge Schofield denied Sophia’s motion to enforce an earlier order requiring meaningful consideration of detention alternatives.
Naishel Sophia and the respondents in her detention and removal proceedings; the order also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 30.
What happened
In Sophia v. Decker, Naishel Sophia asked the court to enforce its February 14, 2020, order requiring a bond hearing with specific protections. She argued that the Immigration Judge did not meaningfully consider alternatives to detention at the March 5, 2020, hearing.
The court reviewed whether the Immigration Judge followed its order, not whether the hearing evidence supported detention. The Immigration Judge asked about ankle monitoring, check-ins, and other possible conditions, considered the limits of available programs, and concluded that alternatives were not appropriate in Sophia’s circumstances.
Judge Schofield denied the motion to enforce and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 30. The court did not review the Immigration Judge’s discretionary decision that Sophia should remain detained.
The detailed version
- Sophia v. Decker · No. 1:19-cv-09599
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 23, 2020
Background
Naishel Sophia had filed a petition challenging her detention. On February 14, 2020, the court granted the petition and ordered an individualized bond hearing with three safeguards: the Department of Homeland Security had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Sophia posed a flight risk or danger to the public; the decision-maker had to meaningfully consider alternatives to detention; and the decision-maker had to meaningfully consider Sophia’s ability to pay if setting a monetary bond.
A bond hearing took place on March 5, 2020. The Immigration Judge and the parties discussed alternatives including release on conditions, ankle monitoring, and check-ins. The Immigration Judge asked what alternatives the Department of Homeland Security could provide and stated that she had authority to set conditions that could lead to a return to custody if violated. The Department said that certain monitoring or programs were unavailable or would not be provided in Sophia’s circumstances. The Immigration Judge ultimately found by clear and convincing evidence that Sophia posed a danger to the public and should remain detained.
Issue
Sophia moved to enforce the February 14 order, arguing that the Immigration Judge had failed to meaningfully consider alternatives to detention. The court explained that its review was limited to deciding whether the respondents complied with the earlier order; it was not a new review of the evidence presented at the bond hearing.
Reasoning
The court concluded that the Immigration Judge meaningfully considered alternatives to detention. The Immigration Judge recognized the earlier order’s requirement, asked about available alternatives, discussed her legal authority to set conditions, and considered whether ankle monitoring or check-ins were possible in light of the Department’s position and Sophia’s circumstances.
The court rejected Sophia’s objections that the Immigration Judge denied having authority to set release conditions, treated alternatives as depending entirely on the Department’s agreement, or considered alternatives only for flight risk. The court also stated that both parties acknowledged that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s discretionary determination that release was not warranted.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Sophia’s motion to enforce. The order directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 30.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.