Aparicio Jimenez v. Decker

Background

Salomon Aparicio Jimenez was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits discretionary detention while the Government decides whether a noncitizen should be removed. He had entered the United States in 2000 without inspection. The opinion states that he had a 2009 conviction for driving while ability impaired by alcohol and pending charges arising from arrests in January 2020.

Aparicio remained detained at Orange County Jail for more than a year. The opinion describes difficulties communicating with counsel and gathering evidence, including the jail's distance from his community, pandemic-related limits on visits, and problems with the jail contractor's videoconferencing system. He requested bond hearings several times. After earlier requests were withdrawn or not pursued, an immigration judge held a bond hearing on July 23, 2020, and denied bond because Aparicio had not shown that he was not a danger to society. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision.

Aparicio's removal proceedings continued while his detention did. An immigration judge denied his application for relief from removal and ordered his removal to Mexico, but his appeal of that decision to the Board remained pending when he filed this case.

Claims and arguments

Aparicio filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a procedure used to challenge unlawful detention. He sought release or a new bond hearing at which the Government would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention was justified based on danger to the community or risk of flight. He also requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking essentially the same relief, including an order preventing his removal from the court's jurisdiction while the case was pending.

Aparicio argued that assigning him the burden of proving that he was not dangerous or likely to flee, after prolonged detention, violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The Government argued that the Constitution did not require shifting the burden of proof and that Aparicio had already received a bond hearing. It also argued that his detention had proceeded without unreasonable delay and that some delays resulted from requests by Aparicio or his counsel.

Court's reasoning

Judge Broderick applied the three-factor balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. The court considered the private liberty interest affected, the risk of an erroneous loss of liberty under the existing procedures and the value of additional safeguards, and the Government's interests and administrative burdens.

The court found that the liberty interest strongly favored Aparicio because he had been detained for more than a year under conditions comparable to imprisonment, during much of the COVID-19 pandemic, even though his detention was civil immigration detention rather than the result of a criminal adjudication. The court also found a significant risk of erroneous continued detention because Aparicio had limited access to counsel and evidence while bearing the burden at the bond hearing. The Government's evidence included his prior DWAI conviction and pending charges, but the court noted that the pending charges had not resulted in convictions.

The court concluded that requiring the Government to justify continued detention would not impose a substantial administrative burden and would serve the public interest when detention is not shown to be necessary. It held that Aparicio's prolonged detention without a bond hearing at which the Government bore the burden violated due process. The court did not need to decide Aparicio's separate arguments under the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Administrative Procedure Act.

Disposition

The court granted in part Aparicio's habeas petition. It ordered the Government to bring him before an immigration judge for an individualized bond hearing within 10 calendar days. At that hearing, the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Aparicio is a danger to the community or a risk of flight. If the Government failed to provide that hearing within 10 days, the court ordered it to release Aparicio immediately on a bond of at least $1,500, with approved security and conditions, or on conditional parole.

The court stated that Aparicio's requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were moot in light of the decision. His request to prevent removal from the court's jurisdiction was also moot. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case.