Hernandez Aguilar v. Decker

Background

Miguel Hernandez Aguilar filed a petition challenging his prolonged detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He sought either release under supervision or an individualized bond hearing. He claimed that his detention without a bond hearing violated procedural due process and that detention conditions failed to protect him adequately from COVID-19 despite his claimed medical risk factors.

ICE detained Hernandez Aguilar beginning July 1, 2019, while he faced immigration removal proceedings. The immigration judge ordered his removal to Mexico on December 11, 2019, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal on June 9, 2020. Hernandez Aguilar then filed a petition for review and a motion to stay removal in the Second Circuit. The district court concluded that his pending proceedings and the Second Circuit’s forbearance policy meant that his removal was not yet imminent or certain. His detention therefore remained governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1231, so his due process claim was not moot.

Court’s Analysis

A preliminary injunction is an order providing temporary relief before a final decision. The court applied the requirements that the moving party show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balancing of the hardships, and consistency with the public interest. Because the requested injunction would affect detention under a statutory scheme, the court applied the likelihood-of-success standard.

The court held that Hernandez Aguilar was likely to succeed on his claim that his mandatory detention under § 1226 had become unreasonable and unconstitutional without an individualized bond hearing. It considered factors including the length of detention, responsibility for delay, asserted defenses to removal, comparison between immigration detention and the criminal sentence, and the conditions of detention. The court found that all of these factors favored Hernandez Aguilar. He had been detained for more than a year without a bond hearing, or more than six months even if 210 days were counted toward his criminal sentence. The court also found that he was not responsible for unreasonable delay because his efforts to challenge removal did not count against him.

The court determined that the continuing detention without a bond hearing created irreparable harm because it deprived Hernandez Aguilar of liberty without due process. It also found that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored protecting his constitutional rights. The court did not need to decide whether the alleged COVID-19 health risk independently justified relief because the due process violation supported the injunction.

Bond-Hearing Requirements and Disposition

The court granted Hernandez Aguilar’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Respondents had to provide an individualized bond hearing within seven business days of the order and report the result to the court within one business day afterward. At the hearing, the government had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Hernandez Aguilar posed a flight risk or danger to the community. The immigration judge also had to consider his ability to pay and possible alternatives to detention.

The injunction did not itself require immediate release. The court stated that a bond hearing would give Hernandez Aguilar an opportunity to show that he was not a flight risk or danger and should be released on bond. However, if Respondents failed to provide the required hearing, they had to release him from detention within seven business days. The court did not grant the alternative request for immediate release under Mapp because it found that the relief granted made a showing of extraordinary circumstances unnecessary.