Reyes v. McHenry

Background

Jose Mauricio Reyes filed a petition seeking court orders against officials involved in the immigration proceedings. He alleged that the Board of Immigration Appeals violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when it vacated an Immigration Judge’s bond decision.

Reyes moved for extra-record discovery, meaning discovery of materials outside the administrative record that the agency had considered. The motion initially covered both his Administrative Procedure Act and due process claims. The government filed the certified administrative record and later represented that the Board had not considered any policies, practice documents, guidelines, directives, or metrics beyond that record. Reyes withdrew the discovery request as to his Administrative Procedure Act claim, leaving only the due process request before the court.

Reasoning

Reyes argued that the Board violated due process by finding him dangerous based on new factual findings, applying incorrect legal standards, mischaracterizing the factual record, and treating a charge listed in a certificate of disposition as though it had occurred.

The court found that these allegations challenged legal errors in the Board’s review of the administrative record and substantially overlapped with the alleged Administrative Procedure Act violations. The court explained that extra-record discovery may be appropriate when a constitutional claim alleges a distinct violation, such as discriminatory intent, decision-maker bias, inadequate individualized notice, or agency action shaped by policies outside the record. But Reyes did not allege that the Board acted with bias or animus, or that outside policies or guidance improperly shaped the record. As pleaded, the due process claim depended on whether the Board applied the correct legal standards to the existing record.

Disposition

The court DENIED Reyes’s motion for discovery. The order did not decide the underlying due process or Administrative Procedure Act claims. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 46.