Martinez Roman v. Decker

Background

Marco Martinez Roman filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He argued that his February 2020 bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the Immigration Judge required him to prove that he was not dangerous instead of requiring the Government to justify his detention.

Mr. Martinez also asked the court to require that a new bond hearing consider alternatives to detention, his ability to pay, and his vulnerability to COVID-19. The Board of Immigration Appeals had dismissed his bond appeal on August 11, 2020. The opinion states that this ruling exhausted the administrative remedies that had remained pending when an earlier petition was denied without prejudice.

Rulings

The court held that, at a bond redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Martinez poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. The court based this requirement on the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, not on the text of Section 1226(a). It explained that immigration detention significantly restricts physical liberty and that due process therefore requires placing the risk of error on the Government.

The court also held that the Immigration Judge must consider alternative conditions of release and the detainee’s ability to pay before deciding whether detention or bond is necessary. The court rejected the Government’s argument that those considerations should apply only when evaluating flight risk. It concluded that these procedural protections apply when evaluating both flight risk and danger to the community.

The court denied Mr. Martinez’s request for an order specifically requiring the Immigration Judge to consider his health conditions and COVID-19 vulnerability. It reasoned that the relevant facts could change over time and that federal regulations already allow the Immigration Judge to consider information presented by the detainee or the Government.

Disposition

The court granted the petition in part. It ordered Respondents to provide Mr. Martinez with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within seven calendar days. At that hearing, the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger to the community or a flight risk, and the Immigration Judge must consider alternative release conditions and Mr. Martinez’s ability to pay. If Respondents failed to provide the hearing within seven calendar days, the order required them to release him immediately.

The court denied Mr. Martinez’s request for oral argument, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case, and otherwise resolved the petition on the papers.