Cabrera Galdamez v. Joyce

Background

William Cabrera Galdamez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged detention in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody without a bond hearing. He had previously been removed to El Salvador in 2010. After returning to the United States with his family in June 2021, he was detained at an ICE check-in on September 29, 2021, after the government reinstated his earlier removal order.

An asylum officer later found that Galdamez had a reasonable fear of future prosecution and torture in El Salvador, leading to proceedings limited to his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied those requests on remand on January 6, 2023, and Galdamez had until February 6, 2023, to appeal. ICE conducted several post-order custody reviews and continued his detention based on his immigration history and 2009 misdemeanor conviction. As of the decision, he had been detained for approximately sixteen months without a bond hearing.

Claims and governing law

Galdamez brought two claims. First, he argued that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Second, he argued that continued detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), as interpreted by Zadvydas v. Davis, because his removal was not reasonably foreseeable. He requested immediate release or a bond hearing at which the government would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention was justified.

The court explained that § 1231(a)(6) allows certain noncitizens with removal orders to be detained beyond the initial 90-day removal period, but does not itself require a bond hearing or impose a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden. Under Zadvydas, however, the statute does not permit indefinite detention and limits detention to the period reasonably necessary to accomplish removal. The court evaluated the due-process claim under the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, considering the individual’s private interest, the risk of an incorrect deprivation under existing procedures, and the government’s interests and administrative burdens.

Due-process ruling

The court held that Galdamez’s sixteen-month detention without an individualized hearing violated due process. His interest in freedom from confinement was substantial. The court also found a significant risk of error because ICE’s internal reviews were not appealable, were conducted by ICE rather than an outside decision-maker, placed the burden on Galdamez, and did not provide an in-person hearing to present arguments, call witnesses, or respond to the government’s evidence.

The court found the government’s interest in continuing detention without a bond hearing weak on the facts presented. It noted Galdamez’s release plan, family connections, attorneys, incentives to attend proceedings, and the age and misdemeanor nature of his only criminal conviction. Balancing the three factors, the court concluded that due process required a bond hearing.

Statutory detention claim

The court denied Galdamez’s claim for immediate release under § 1231(a)(6) and Zadvydas. Although his detention had exceeded six months, the court concluded that removal was reasonably foreseeable because it depended on the resolution of his appeal. The court stated that, after the appeal, Galdamez would either be removed or released, and identified no other barrier to removal.

Required hearing procedures and disposition

The court agreed that the bond hearing had to include meaningful safeguards. The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Galdamez presents a danger to the community or a flight risk. The immigration judge must also consider Galdamez’s ability to pay a bond and alternatives to detention.

The petition was granted in part. The government was ordered to hold the bond hearing by February 20, 2023, or release Galdamez on his own recognizance. The government was required to file a letter by February 27, 2023, confirming that the hearing occurred and stating its outcome. Galdamez’s request to prevent transfer outside the New York Field Office and the Southern District of New York was denied as moot. The court directed entry of judgment for Galdamez and closure of the case.