Benavides Carballo v. Andrews

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part a motion for a preliminary injunction and denies the government’s motion to stay. The court holds that the petitioner, who was re-detained after approximately five years of successful release and community integration, has a protected liberty interest requiring procedural due process. The government is enjoined from detaining him for more than fourteen days without a bond hearing at which it must justify detention by clear and convincing evidence.

Holdings

1. A noncitizen subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) may possess a protected liberty interest when, after a prior individualized release determination, the noncitizen remains free for years, successfully reintegrates into the community, complies with release conditions, and is later re-detained without an identified material change in circumstances.
2. Due process requires respondents to provide petitioner a post-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter within fourteen days, at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner presently poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
3. Petitioner satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction because he showed likely success on the merits, irreparable harm, favorable equities, and that the injunction serves the public interest; alternatively, he showed serious questions going to the merits.
4. Respondents were not entitled to a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner possesses a protected liberty interest, for due-process purposes, after five years of successful release and community reintegration followed by re-detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
2. Whether due process requires a bond hearing before petitioner may continue to be detained, and what burden of proof applies at that hearing.
3. Whether petitioner satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction.
4. Whether respondents were entitled to a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Disposition

other