Garcia v. Decker

Citation448 F.Supp.3d 297
Decision Date24 March 2020
Docket Number20-cv-1345 (LJL)
Parties Oscar Leonel GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Thomas DECKER, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, William Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Respondents.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

Mary Sameera Van Houten Harper, Hannah McCrea, Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.

Joshua Evan Kahane, U.S. Attorney Office, New York, NY, for Respondents.

OPINION & ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

Oscar Leonel Garcia ("Petitioner" or "Mr. Garcia") brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution of the United States. He asserts that he is being held unconstitutionally in the custody of the United States because, at the bond hearing held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Government was not required to show that Mr. Garcia posed either a risk of flight or a danger to the community. For the following reasons, the petition is granted.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the petition before the Court and supporting materials. Mr. Garcia has lived in the New York area for over a decade. He has an eighteen-month-old daughter who is a U.S. citizen. Mr. Garcia himself is a native and citizen of Guatemala. Mr. Garcia's entire criminal record consists of a sole non-criminal conviction for disorderly conduct. On June 1, 2019, he was arrested in Rockland County, New York. He was charged with two domestic violence misdemeanors stemming from allegations made by Mr. Garcia's former partner, the mother of his child. Following Mr. Garcia's arraignment, the criminal court released him on his own recognizance. Throughout this time, Mr. Garcia maintained his innocence as to the accusations underlying the criminal charges. On January 7, 2020, in exchange for dismissal of the misdemeanor charges, Mr. Garcia pleaded guilty in the Rockland County Court to disorderly conduct, a violation—not a crime. See N.Y. Penal Law § 240.20 ("Disorderly conduct is a violation."); id. at § 10.00 (" ‘Crime’ means a misdemeanor or a felony."). There was never any finding or adjudication that Mr. Garcia engaged in any of the alleged conduct (or indeed any violent or dangerous conduct). He was sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge, and a two-year order of protection was entered against him.

While the criminal case had been pending, Rockland County's Integrated Domestic Violence ("IDV") court placed Mr. Garcia's daughter in the custody of her mother but granted Mr. Garcia weekly supervised visits with his daughter. According to a letter from a supervisor of the visitation program, Mr. Garcia was "[r]espectful to the staff, committed to his time, [and] loving and caring to his daughter." Mr. Garcia, "at each [visit] brought diapers, wipes, cloth, toys, and snacks for [his daughter]." Overall, the supervisor "saw a caring, loving and family-oriented person."

On August 28, 2019, while the criminal charges were pending, ICE issued an administrative warrant of arrest for Mr. Garcia. On November 19, 2019, as Mr. Garcia approached the entrance to the Rockland County Courthouse for an appearance in his criminal case, ICE agents arrested and detained him for purposes of placing him in removal proceedings. On November 22, 2019, ICE served a Notice to Appear, charging Mr. Garcia as removable. At a hearing on December 10, 2019, Mr. Garcia, through counsel, indicated that he would seek to terminate proceedings based on his allegedly unlawful arrest outside the courthouse. On January 14, 2020, Mr. Garcia's counsel filed a written motion to terminate removal proceedings, or in the alternative, to suppress and exclude evidence recovered during the arrest.

The bond hearing relevant to this appeal took place on January 28, 2020, four months after Mr. Garcia was first placed in detention. In advance of that hearing, Mr. Garcia submitted, through counsel, over 150 pages of evidence in support of his request for bond. His papers emphasized that his sole arrest had been resolved with a plea to a disorderly conduct violation.1 The Government submitted no evidence. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge denied bond. Crucially, the Immigration Judge reached that determination after placing the burden on Mr. Garcia to prove that he did not present a danger to the community or a flight risk, thereby relieving the Government of any burden.2

On February 26, 2020, Mr. Garcia filed a motion for a bond redetermination hearing, alleging changed circumstances. A bond redetermination hearing was scheduled before an Immigration Judge for March 19, 2020. Mr. Garcia has been detained from November 19, 2019 through the present. The IDV court has indicated that it would grant Mr. Garcia continued supervised visitation with his daughter, as well as phone calls with her, but only upon Mr. Garcia's release from ICE custody.

This Court heard oral argument, on the record and via teleconference, on the petition on March 13, 2020. That same day, the Court orally granted the petition and ordered that Mr. Garcia be given a hearing by ICE at which the Government would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Garcia posed either a risk of flight or a danger to the community. The Court further ordered that he be released if he were not given that hearing within seven days. And the Court explained its reasoning. Shortly thereafter, the Court issued a short written order. This opinion explains the Court's decision in greater detail.

DISCUSSION
1. Jurisdiction and Venue

The Government does not dispute that this Court has jurisdiction and that venue properly lies in the Southern District of New York. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2241 ; Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution ; and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Venue properly lies in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. At the time of the filing of the petition, Mr. Garcia was detained at the Orange County Correctional Facility in Goshen, New York, which is within this District. In addition, Respondent Decker is located within this District and, as Director of the ICE NY Field Office, has control over Petitioner's detention. See Cruz v. Decker , 2019 WL 6318627, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2019) ; Rodriguez Sanchez v. Decker , 2019 WL 3840977, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2019).

2. Due Process Violation

Mr. Garcia claims that his continued detention at the Orange County Correctional Facility violates the Constitution, and specifically the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because the Government has never been required to prove that he presents either a risk of flight or a danger to the community. The Court agrees.

Numerous courts in this District have determined that a violation of the Due Process Clause occurs when the Government detains a person suspected of being removable from the United States without demonstrating at a Section 1226(a) bond hearing that he or she does not pose a risk of flight or a danger to the community. This Court agrees that the Government bears the burden of making such showing and by clear and convincing evidence. See Velasco Lopez v. Decker , 2019 WL 2655806, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019) ("Every court to have considered to have considered the constitutional issue ... has agreed [that] under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, it is the government's burden to justify the detention of an immigrant at a bond hearing under § 1226(a)."); see also Linares Martinez v. Decker , 2018 WL 5023946, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2018) (collecting cases).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reached the same conclusion. See Singh v. Holder , 638 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011).

The Court is persuaded by the reasoning underlying that precedent. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, "[n]o person shall ... be deprived of ... liberty ... without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. V. The liberty guaranteed by that clause does not extend to United States citizens alone. Both the language of the Constitution and the caselaw under it establish that the protection extends to all persons, including persons whom the Government alleges to be non-citizens and to be removable. It is also established that the protection afforded by the Due Process Clause includes the right to receive a full and fair hearing that provides a meaningful opportunity to be heard before one's liberty is taken away. Zuniga-Perez v. Sessions , 897 F.3d 114, 122 (2d. Cir. 2018) (citing Reno v. Flores , 507 U.S. 292, 306, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) ); see Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 693, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) ("[T]he Due Process clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."). Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that freedom from civil detention is a core tenet of constitutional due process. See Addington v. Texas , 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) ("This Court repeatedly has recognized that civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection."); see also Zadvydas , 533 U.S. at 690, 121 S.Ct. 2491 ("Freedom from imprisonment–from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint–lies at the heart of the liberty [the Due Process Clause] protects."); Foucha v. Louisiana , 504 U.S. 71, 80, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992) ("Freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ferreyra v. Decker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 27 Abril 2020
    ...detained," and is the proper respondent. Rodriguez Sanchez , 2019 WL 3840977, at *4 ; see also, e.g. , Garcia v. Decker , No. 20 Civ. 1345, 448 F.Supp.3d 297, 300 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020) ("Respondent Decker is located within this District and, as Director of the ICE NY Field Office, has co......
  • Satispie, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 6:17-CV-06234 EAW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 25 Marzo 2020
  • B.S. v. Joyce
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 13 Febrero 2023
    ...*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019), affd, 978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). “If this Court does not hear his claim, no one will.” Garcia v. Decker, 448 F.Supp.3d 297, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (noting that, under different circumstances “where a petitioner was pursuing an ongoing BIA appeal or where such an a......
  • Quintanilla v. Decker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 22 Febrero 2021
    ...is the Government's burden to justify the detention of an immigrant at a bond hearing under § 1226(a)."); see also Garcia v. Decker, 448 F. Supp. 3d 297, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); Medley v. Decker, No. 18 Civ. 7361 (AJN), 2019 WL 7374408, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2019) (collecting cases); Linare......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT