Summary
The panel held that due process does not require a second bond hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) after an initial bond hearing. The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, with a statement by Judge Paez, joined by ten judges, arguing that the panel opinion conflicts with *Singh v. Holder*, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and misapplies the *Mathews v. Eldridge* balancing test, creating a risk that prolonged detention under § 1226(a) may become effectively unreviewable.
Topics
Questions Presented
- Whether the Due Process Clause requires a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence when a noncitizen's detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) becomes prolonged after an initial bond hearing.
Holdings
- The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied.
Key quotations
“The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, Dkt. 104, is DENIED.” (at 3)
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” (at 3)
“Where prolonged detention is permissible, 'due process requires adequate procedural protections to ensure that the government's asserted justification for physical confinement outweighs the individual's constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.'” (at 5)
Factual background
Rodriguez Diaz, a noncitizen, was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). He received an initial bond hearing at which he bore the burden of proving he was not a flight risk or a danger to the community. He was detained for fourteen months after that hearing. The district court found his detention had become prolonged and ordered a bond hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The panel reversed.
Procedural history
The district court granted Rodriguez Diaz's habeas petition challenging his continued immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) after an initial bond hearing. The panel reversed, holding that due process does not require a second bond hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Rodriguez Diaz filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied.