Toussaint v. Garland

Background

Denis Toussaint, also identified in the caption as Dennis Toussaint, is a lawful permanent resident and a native of Saint Lucia. He was detained by the Department of Homeland Security after completing a state prison sentence. The Government began removal proceedings based on his convictions for assault and weapons offenses.

Toussaint had been in immigration detention for more than seventeen months when the court issued its opinion. An immigration judge initially found him subject to mandatory detention and denied bond. Toussaint later sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Those applications were denied, but the Board of Immigration Appeals sent the case back for further consideration of his Convention Against Torture claim. The immigration case remained pending.

Toussaint filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing courts to review whether a person’s custody violates federal law or the Constitution. He argued that his prolonged mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process guarantee. He requested release or an individualized bond hearing at which the Government would have to prove that he was dangerous or likely to flee.

Court’s analysis

The court applied a case-by-case analysis of whether mandatory immigration detention had become unreasonably prolonged. The factors included the length of detention, responsibility for delay, whether the person had defenses to removal, whether detention had exceeded the criminal sentence, the nature of the detention facility, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether the immigration case was nearing its conclusion.

The court found that the length of Toussaint’s detention favored a hearing. Although he had requested several continuances and an extension, the court found no evidence that he had unreasonably delayed the proceedings or acted in bad faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals had taken 226 days to decide his appeal, and the case had been remanded because the immigration judge had not adequately considered his evidence and had relied on evidence outside the record without giving him an opportunity to respond.

Toussaint’s pending Convention Against Torture claim was a valid defense to removal, making his eventual removal not inevitable. His detention had not yet exceeded his criminal sentence, and the seriousness of his assault and weapons convictions weighed against him. But the court found that the immigration-only unit where he was held was not meaningfully different from a penal institution, and that his detention was not close to ending. On balance, the court concluded that continued detention without a bond hearing was unreasonable and violated due process.

Bond-hearing requirements and ruling

Judge Seibel held that the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Toussaint is a danger to the community or a flight risk. If the immigration judge finds that Toussaint is not dangerous, the judge must consider his ability to pay and available release conditions when evaluating flight risk.

The court granted Toussaint’s petition. It ordered the Government to hold an individualized bond hearing consistent with the opinion within fourteen days or release Toussaint on his own recognizance. The court also directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Toussaint and close the case.