Rivera Quintanilla v. Decker

Background

Alexis Rivera Quintanilla sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a court to review certain unlawful detention claims. He challenged his ongoing detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while removal proceedings were pending. He argued that his December 2020 bond hearing violated due process because the immigration judge required him to establish that he was not a danger to the community or a flight risk.

Rivera Quintanilla entered the United States without inspection as an unaccompanied minor in 2011 and was later placed in removal proceedings. His application for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status was approved in 2017, but he was waiting for his priority date to become current so that he could seek adjustment of status. He had pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and received a fine and two years of probation. He also faced pending charges involving driving on a suspended license and failing to use a required alcohol interlock device. The opinion states that he had no other criminal record.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him in November 2020. The immigration judge later denied his bond application after finding that Rivera Quintanilla had not shown he was not a danger to the community. His appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was still pending when the federal court considered his petition.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The court explained that although federal law does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before a person challenges immigration detention through a detention petition, courts generally require exhaustion as a prudential matter. The court excused that requirement here because the pending appeal could not provide adequate relief and could not resolve Rivera Quintanilla’s constitutional challenge.

The court reasoned that even if the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered another bond hearing, its existing precedent would still place the burden on Rivera Quintanilla to show that he was not a danger or flight risk. The Board also lacked authority to decide his constitutional argument. The court noted that the respondents’ position about whether Rivera Quintanilla was challenging the burden allocation or separately challenging the danger finding was not entirely clear, but concluded that exhaustion was excused either way.

Due process ruling

The court held that the bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It relied on the significant liberty interest involved in detention and on decisions from other judges in the Southern District of New York holding that, when the government detains a noncitizen under its discretionary authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified by flight risk or danger to the community.

The respondents argued that a Second Circuit decision, Velasco Lopez v. Decker, prevented the court from shifting the burden to the government. The court disagreed. It read that decision as declining to establish a bright-line rule for a particular prolonged-detention situation, not as holding that due process forbids placing the burden on the government. The court joined what it described as the overwhelming consensus of judges in the district and applied the government-burden rule regardless of the length of detention.

The court did not reach Rivera Quintanilla’s separate claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Administrative Procedure Act because it found a due process violation. It also declined to direct the immigration judge to disregard allegedly uncorroborated criminal allegations, stating that immigration judges may consider a detainee’s overall criminal history, including arrests and unarraigned charges, when assessing danger to the community.

Disposition

The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered the respondents, within ten business days, to provide Rivera Quintanilla with a constitutionally adequate, individualized bond hearing. At that hearing, the respondents must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community. The immigration judge must also meaningfully consider alternatives to incarceration and Rivera Quintanilla’s ability to pay if setting a monetary bond.

Rivera Quintanilla’s separate motion for an order to show cause, preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order was denied as moot.