Martinez Roman v. Decker

Background

Marco Martinez Roman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for a court to review the legality of his detention, challenging the constitutionality of an immigration bond hearing held on February 25, 2020. He argued that the Immigration Judge improperly placed the burden on him to show that he should be released, failed to consider alternatives to detention and his ability to pay, and failed to consider his vulnerability to COVID-19.

On September 25, 2020, the court conditionally granted in part his petition. It ordered the respondents to provide a new bond hearing at which the government would have to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Martinez Roman was dangerous or likely to flee. The court also ordered the Immigration Judge to consider alternatives to detention and Martinez Roman’s ability to pay.

Martinez Roman received the new hearing on September 28, 2020. The Immigration Judge stated that the government had to prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. After considering evidence submitted by both sides, the Immigration Judge found that the government had not proved that Martinez Roman was dangerous but had proved that he presented a flight risk. The Immigration Judge denied alternatives to detention.

Motion to Enforce

Martinez Roman moved to enforce the September 25 order. He argued that the Immigration Judge had not actually applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard because the evidence was legally insufficient to establish flight risk. He also argued that the Immigration Judge had failed to meaningfully consider alternatives to detention. The opinion states that he did not argue that the Immigration Judge failed to consider his ability to pay.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that it retained limited authority to determine whether Martinez Roman had received the process required by its earlier order. But federal law barred the court from reviewing the Immigration Judge’s discretionary bond determination. The court therefore would not conduct a new review of the evidence or reweigh the factors considered at the hearing.

The court concluded that the Immigration Judge complied with the earlier order. The hearing transcript and written decision showed that the Immigration Judge placed the burden on the government to prove flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, reviewed the evidence, heard both sides’ arguments, and reached a legally permissible conclusion.

The court acknowledged that the written decision appeared to incorrectly state that an appeal was pending in the Second Circuit when, according to the opinion, the appeal was not filed there until later. The court also noted the Immigration Judge’s apparent reliance on Martinez Roman’s prior bond determination and his ties to the United States as factors supporting flight risk. The court held that these issues did not show noncompliance with the earlier order; reviewing them would improperly require the court to reweigh the Immigration Judge’s evidence assessment.

The court also rejected the argument that alternatives to detention had not been meaningfully considered. It found that the Immigration Judge addressed alternatives in both the oral and written decisions, and that disagreement with the result involved a discretionary judgment outside the court’s limited review.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Martinez Roman’s motion to enforce. The order states that the motion was denied and resolves the identified docket entry.