Arana v. Barr

Background

Pedro Arana had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since July 31, 2018, while in removal proceedings. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a bond hearing. In an April 3, 2020 order, the district court conditionally granted relief by requiring the government to produce Arana before an immigration judge for an individualized bond hearing by April 7, 2020, or release him on his own recognizance. The court also required the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Arana posed a flight risk or danger to the community and directed the immigration judge to consider alternatives to detention.

Immigration Judge Brian Sardelli held the hearing on April 7, 2020, and denied bond after finding that Arana posed a danger to the community. Judge Sardelli later issued a written decision stating that the government had proved dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. The written decision considered Arana’s attempted-arson conviction, an older driving-while-intoxicated conviction, his mental and physical health, and proposed support after release. It also considered alternatives such as release on recognizance, parole, and electronic monitoring, but concluded that Arana was not suitable for any alternative because of the weight of his criminal convictions, particularly the arson offense.

Motion to Enforce

Arana moved to enforce the district court’s April 3 order. He argued that Judge Sardelli had not applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, had improperly relied on his convictions, had shifted the burden of proof, and had not meaningfully considered alternatives to detention. The government argued that the hearing and written decision complied with the order.

The district court explained that its review was narrow. A motion to enforce asked whether the government complied with the court’s earlier order; it did not permit a new review of the hearing evidence or a review of the immigration judge’s discretionary decision about the weight given to particular facts. The court also stated that federal law generally barred review of immigration bond decisions, while allowing review of whether the government followed the procedures required by a conditional habeas order.

Ruling

The court concluded that the government fully complied with the April 3 order. It found that Judge Sardelli reviewed evidence and heard arguments, required the government to meet the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden, found that burden satisfied as to danger to the community, and considered alternatives to detention. The court rejected Arana’s challenges to how Judge Sardelli weighed the evidence because those challenges were outside the district court’s limited review.

The court therefore denied Arana’s motion to enforce. It directed the clerk to terminate that motion, terminate all other pending motions as moot, and close the case. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding the merits of Arana’s current detention or removal.