Marvin Miranda v. Merrick Garland

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 19, 2022 · No. 20-1828

Summary

The Fourth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) strips federal courts of jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief regarding detention procedures under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court also held that the existing procedures—placing the burden on the alien to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not a flight risk or danger, with three opportunities for review—satisfy due process, and that immigration judges are not constitutionally required to consider an alien’s ability to pay bond or alternatives to detention. The district court’s preliminary injunction requiring the government to prove detention by clear and convincing evidence and to consider those factors was vacated as to both class-wide and individual relief.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Quattlebaum; Richardson; Urbanski
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
May 19, 2022
Docket number
20-1828
Procedural posture
Appeal from a preliminary injunction order
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion for preliminary injunction; errors of law are grounds for reversal
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Marvin Dubon Miranda, Ajibade Thompson Adegoke, Jose de la Cruz Espinoza
Disposition
vacated_and_remanded

Topics

immigration detentiondue processfifth amendmentclass actionssubject matter jurisdictionappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

Immigration LawConstitutional Law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1).
  2. Whether the procedures for § 1226(a) bond hearings violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
  3. Whether the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction.

Holdings

  1. Under § 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that enjoined or restrained the process used for § 1226(a) bond hearings.
  2. The current procedures—placing the burden on the alien to prove they are not a danger or flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence, without a requirement to consider ability to pay or alternatives—do not violate the Due Process Clause.

Key quotations

8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits the Attorney General to detain aliens pending their removal hearings. (at 3)
Section 1252(f)(1) expressly precludes 'jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain' provisions of the immigration laws, including § 1226(a), on a class-wide basis. (at 19)
The procedures currently used for detention under § 1226(a) satisfy due process. (at 41)

Factual background

Three aliens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) pending removal proceedings challenged the procedures for bond hearings. The procedures provide three opportunities for release: with an immigration officer, an immigration judge, and the Board of Immigration Appeals. At each step, the alien bears the burden to prove they are not a danger or flight risk. The district court issued a class-wide preliminary injunction requiring the government to bear the burden by clear and convincing evidence and to consider ability to pay and alternatives to detention.

Procedural history

The district court granted a class-wide preliminary injunction requiring the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or danger, and to consider ability to pay and alternatives to detention. The government appealed.

Remand instructions

Remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…