Sacal-Micha v. Longoria

• Decision Date: 27 March 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-37
• Citation: 449 F.Supp.3d 656
• Parties: Jaime SACAL-MICHA, Petitioner, v. Jose Garcia LONGORIA Jr, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

449 F.Supp.3d 656

Jaime SACAL-MICHA, Petitioner,

v.Jose Garcia LONGORIA Jr, et al., Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-37

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Brownsville Division.

Signed March 27, 2020

Jaime M Diez, Jones Crane, Brownsville, TX, Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga, Attorney at Law, San Benito, TX, for Petitioner.

OPINION AND ORDER

Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., United States District Judge

On March 22, 2020, Petitioner Jaime Sacal-Micha (Sacal) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1), requesting that the Court order his immediate release from immigration detention pending the resolution of his claim under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.¹ Sacal is elderly and has serious underlying medical conditions. He seeks release based on the possibility of a COVID-19 outbreak within the detention center in which he is being held, and the facility's alleged inability to protect him from contracting the virus or providing him with adequate medical attention should he do so.

On March 24, 2020, the Court held a telephonic conference regarding the request for a temporary restraining order. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the exhibits submitted by the parties, as well as the applicable law.² For the following reasons, the Court denies the application for a temporary restraining order.

I. Procedural and Factual Background

Sacal is a sixty-nine-year-old wealthy Mexican citizen with significant real estate holdings. He claims he fled Mexico because family members seeking to obtain control of his real estate used their influence to have the government file false criminal charges against him, accusing him of a violent crime against one of his granddaughters. The Mexican government issued an arrest warrant for Sacal's arrest. (Arrest Warrant, Doc. 10)

Sacal vigorously denies the criminal charges, but chose to leave Mexico to avoid arrest and to fight the charges from afar. He planned to reside in his apartment in New York City. On December 2, 2019, he presented himself at a United States port of entry and sought admission with his nonimmigrant visa. (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, Doc. 9-1) The inspecting officer with United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determined that the United States Department of State had revoked Sacal's visa based on the outstanding Mexican arrest warrant. (Id. ; TECS Record, Doc. 9-2) CBP issued Sacal a Notice of Expedited Removal, charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). As Sacal had expressed a fear of return to Mexico, he was transferred to the custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which detained him at the Port Isabel Detention Center. (Notice of Expedited Removal, Doc. 9-3; Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet, Doc. 9-4)

On December 6, an Asylum Officer conducted the credible-fear interview and concluded that Sacal did not present a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to Mexico. (Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet, Doc. 9-4) Sacal sought review by an Immigration Judge, who vacated the Asylum Officer's decision and placed Sacal in regular removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. (Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding/Request for IJ Review, Doc. 9-5) According to Sacal, the Immigration Judge indicated that Sacal could seek relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Petition, Doc. 1, ¶ 9)

Sacal then requested that ICE release him on parole. (Emails, Doc. 2, 11-12) On February 11, 2020, ICE decided to not release Sacal based on two key findings, both premised on the outstanding arrest warrant. First, ICE concluded that Sacal represented a danger to the community. (Record of Determination, Doc. 9-8, 4) Second, the outstanding arrest warrant created "exceptional, overriding factors (e.g., law enforcement interests or potential foreign policy consequences)" that precluded parole. (ICE Decision Ltr., Doc. 9-8, 2)

On March 18, 2020, Sacal's counsel again requested that ICE release him due to his poor health and the COVID-19 pandemic. (Emails, Doc. 2, 2) Sacal's counsel noted that the CAT proceedings would continue for many months, and that Sacal suffers from serious medical conditions. (Id. ; see also Sacal's Medical Records, Doc. 11-1 (diagnosing several health conditions)) Two days later, after an exchange of communications and information, ICE again denied the request: "We have carefully considered your request, and based on the totality of the facts in this case, [ ] we are denying your request at this time." (Emails, Doc. 2, 1)

The parties agree that during most of Sacal's time in detention, he has been held in the infirmary. (Petition, Doc. 1, ¶ 15; Response, Doc. 8, 7) Sacal does not allege that he has received inadequate care for his current medical conditions.

As of March 24, ICE had not confirmed any cases of COVID-19 in the Port Isabel Detention Center, including the infirmary in which Sacal has received care. (Decl. of Dr. Maribel Cantu, Doc. 9-9) Respondents submit evidence of the protective measures that ICE has implemented to reduce the risk of detainees contracting COVID-19. (Id. )

II. Applicable Standard

Sacal seeks a temporary restraining order requiring his immediate release so that he may reside at a local shelter where he would receive ongoing medical care and have minimal contact with others. (Petition, Doc. 1, ¶ 1) He bases the request for emergency injunctive relief on his petition for writ of habeas corpus and a cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

A temporary restraining order is an equitable remedy that may be granted only if the movant satisfies four requirements: "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest." Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. West Bend Co. , 123 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir. 1997) ; see also Parker v. Ryan , 960 F.2d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 1992) ("[T]he requirements of rule 65 apply to all injunctions.") (citing FED . R. CIV . P. 65 ). Failure to establish any of these elements results in the denial of the motion for injunctive relief. Guy Carpenter & Co. v. Provenzale , 334 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Such relief is an extraordinary remedy that requires the applicant to unequivocally show the need for its issuance. See Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd. , 118 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).

III. Analysis

Based on the record before it and the applicable law, and for the following reasons, the Court concludes that Sacal has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on either of his claims.³

A. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

An individual may seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if he is "in custody" under federal authority "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). The "sole function" of a habeas petition is to "grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody." Pierre v. United States , 525 F.2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir. 1976). The Fifth Circuit follows a bright-line rule: "If a favorable determination ... would not automatically entitle [the detainee] to accelerated release, ... the proper vehicle is a [civil rights] suit." Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 820–21 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted).

A district court possesses inherent authority to grant bail based on a petition for habeas relief, if doing so is required to protect the court's ability to consider the petitioner's claim that has been properly brought before it. But such authority is limited and reserved for unusual circumstances. The petitioner must demonstrate that the habeas petition raises substantial claims and that "extraordinary circumstances exist that make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective." Mapp v. Reno , 241 F.3d 221, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). Respondents contest that such authority exists in this case, arguing that Sacal "may only be released from § 1225(b) custody if the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines ‘on a case-by-case basis’ that ‘urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit’ warrant the alien's release on parole." (Response, Doc. 8, 12 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(iii) )) But Respondents' argument misses the source of the authority. As applied to the present matter, this Court would not order Sacal's release by finding that the Secretary of DHS should have done so under Section 1182, but only by finding that releasing Sacal is necessary to meaningfully consider Sacal's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and to maintain the possibility of providing effective habeas remedy, should the Court decide that such a remedy is warranted. Such inherent authority does not infringe on the Secretary of DHS's discretion under Section 1182, but rather protects the Court's power to provide meaningful relief based on a claim properly before it.

Still, to obtain emergency injunctive relief, a petitioner must satisfy the controlling requirements, including demonstrating a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. As a result, as applied to the present case, Sacal must demonstrate that his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus presents substantial claims on which Sacal possesses a substantial likelihood of succeeding, and that extraordinary circumstances exist that require his release to make any habeas remedy effective. He fails to meet this exacting standard.

Sacal in his Petition does not present substantial claims on which he is likely to succeed. Importantly, "allegations that challenge rules, customs, and procedures affecting conditions of confinement...