Ferreyra v. Decker

Background

In May 2020, the court issued a preliminary injunction—an order providing temporary relief before a final decision on the case’s claims—that required U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to release Petitioner Rolando Oshane Villiers and three other petitioners because of the health risks posed by COVID-19. The injunction also barred Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Director of the New York Field Office of ICE, from arresting the petitioners for civil immigration detention without first obtaining the court’s permission.

Villiers had asthma. He had pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and received a 364-day prison sentence. An order of protection also required him to stay away from his ex-girlfriend. After his release under the court’s orders, he was arrested several times in 2020 and 2021 in connection with alleged assaults. Those charges were dismissed in April 2022. In June 2022, he was arrested and charged with attempted murder, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon, obstruction of governmental justice, and harassment. The alleged victim was his ex-girlfriend. Villiers remained in state custody, and his immigration case was administratively closed because of that custody.

The request to modify the injunction

Decker asked the court to modify or vacate the part of the injunction that prevented him from arresting and re-detaining Villiers. Decker relied on the injunction’s condition that Villiers not commit a federal, state, or local crime.

When deciding whether to modify a preliminary injunction because of an alleged violation of a no-crime condition, the court had to determine whether it was more likely than not that Villiers violated the condition. The court found that Decker had provided substantial evidence that Villiers stabbed his ex-girlfriend on June 6, 2022, including a 911 recording, an arrest report, a domestic-incident report, photographs, medical records, and recordings of calls. The court also found that the alleged conduct was part of a pattern of domestic violence. It therefore concluded that Villiers more likely than not violated the no-crime condition.

Why the court denied the motion

The court stated that finding a violation did not end the analysis. The violation was evidence relevant to the danger Villiers might pose to the community, which affected the balance of the equities and the public interest. But Villiers was already in state custody and therefore did not pose a threat to the community at that time.

The court also held that Decker had not shown that the risk of irreparable harm—the type of serious harm that cannot adequately be repaired later—had disappeared. The court rejected the argument that general improvements in COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and mitigation strategies resolved the issue. Instead, it had to consider the conditions Villiers would face if re-detained. Decker did not provide evidence that Villiers had been vaccinated, show that Villiers would be allowed to keep his inhaler, or identify the facility where Villiers would be detained. The court therefore could not determine that the facility would have appropriate procedures to reduce the risk of serious illness.

Disposition

The court concluded that modifying the preliminary injunction to permit Villiers’s re-detention was not appropriate at that time. The court denied Decker’s motion for modification of the preliminary injunction without prejudice to renewal.