Gomez v. McHenry

Background

Adrian Fernando Gomez, a Colombian citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in December 2017 and placed in removal proceedings. Those proceedings remained pending. The Board of Immigration Appeals ordered Gomez detained without bond after finding that he was a danger to the community.

An immigration judge had previously found that Gomez was not a danger to the community or a flight risk and had ordered his release on a $7,000 bond while the Government’s appeal was pending. The immigration judge relied in part on findings about Gomez’s 2016 arrest, his rehabilitation from alcohol-related problems, his relationship with his wife, and his family and community ties. The Board later vacated that bond decision.

Gomez sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Due Process Clause, and the Mandamus Act. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, which asks whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law without a trial.

Jurisdiction

The Government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Gomez was challenging the Board’s discretionary judgment about bond. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over Gomez’s legal challenges to whether the Board applied the correct standard of review to the immigration judge’s factual findings and whether the Board misunderstood the law governing relevant factors.

The court agreed with the Government, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary weighing of the facts underlying its conclusion that Gomez posed a danger to the community. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), the court could not review that discretionary judgment itself.

Merits of the Administrative Procedure Act Claim

The court reviewed the Board’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agency action to be set aside when it is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful. The court held that the Board did not provide specific, convincing reasons for departing from the immigration judge’s factual findings.

First, the immigration judge found that Gomez’s 2016 arrest arose from a dispute with his landlady rather than his wife. The Board cast doubt on that finding because Gomez had not submitted documentary evidence, but it did not identify an inconsistency in the record or explain why the immigration judge’s finding was mistaken. The court concluded that the Board did not apply the required clear-error standard to that factual finding.

Second, the immigration judge found that Gomez had made genuine progress in rehabilitation. The Board discounted that finding because of a lack of objective documentary evidence, without explaining why the immigration judge was wrong to rely on the evidence, including an affidavit from Gomez’s wife, Gomez’s account of his alcohol problems, and his lack of convictions after 2013. The court again found that the Board applied the wrong standard of review.

Third, the court held that the Board misunderstood the scope of its discretion when it relied on precedent to suggest that Gomez’s family and community ties related only to flight risk and not to dangerousness. The court explained that those ties could be relevant to whether Gomez was likely to commit additional offenses, depending on the circumstances. The Board’s categorical treatment of those factors was an incorrect statement of law.

Because the Board’s legal errors prevented the court from determining whether the Board would have reached the same result without them, the court held that remand was required. On remand, the Board would have to accept the immigration judge’s findings or provide a supportable basis for rejecting them.

Disposition

The court granted Gomez’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Government’s motion for summary judgment. It vacated the Board’s May 2, 2019 decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Because Gomez received full relief on his Administrative Procedure Act claim, the court did not reach his Due Process or Mandamus Act claims. The court directed the Clerk to close the motions and the case.