P.M. v. Joyce

Background

P.M., whom the court had allowed to proceed using his initials, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. He had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since August 6, 2021, while removal proceedings were pending. The parties stipulated that his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At an October 27, 2021 bond hearing, the immigration judge placed the burden on P.M. to show that he was neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. The immigration judge denied bond after considering P.M.’s burglary conviction, substance-abuse history, and arrests.

P.M. argued that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause required the government to bear the burden of proving that continued detention was justified. He also asserted a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. The government argued that the original hearing was sufficient and that P.M. could not show that using the government’s proposed burden of proof would have changed the result.

Bond hearing

The court held that due process required a new bond hearing at which the government would bear the burden of proof. Applying the factors from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court emphasized P.M.’s substantial liberty interest, his detention for more than eighteen months, and the risk of an erroneous decision when a detained person must prove a negative using information that may be more accessible to the government. The court also found that the government had not identified an adequate interest in continuing P.M.’s prolonged detention without requiring it to justify that detention.

The court concluded that P.M. had shown prejudice from the earlier procedure. The record indicated that his convictions were not particularly serious and that the burglary conviction did not involve violence or a weapon. The court therefore found that, if the government had carried the burden and the evidence had remained the same, the immigration judge might have found that the government failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that P.M. was dangerous or likely to flee. Because the court found a due-process violation, it did not address P.M.’s separate Administrative Procedure Act argument.

Transfer request and disposition

The court denied P.M.’s request to prevent the government from transferring him outside the jurisdiction of the New York Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to transfer detainees.

The court’s conclusion states that P.M.’s petition for a new bond hearing was GRANTED, while his request to enjoin transfer was DENIED. The court directed respondents to provide P.M. an individualized bond hearing within seven calendar days. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that P.M. is a danger to the community or a flight risk. The immigration judge must meaningfully consider alternatives to detention and P.M.’s ability to pay if setting a monetary bond. If the government failed to provide a compliant hearing within seven calendar days, it had to immediately release P.M. The case was closed.