Garcia-Ayala v. Andrews

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Luis David Garcia-Ayala’s motion for a temporary restraining order concerning his immigration detention and potential removal to a third country. The court found serious questions regarding his due process right to notice and a hearing before revocation of his release and regarding removal to a country not previously designated. The court ordered his immediate release, prohibited re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing, and barred transfer or removal without notice and a hearing through August 22, 2025.

Holdings

1. A noncitizen may not be removed to a country that has not been designated for removal without notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise and pursue a fear-based claim concerning that country. Because only El Salvador appeared to have been designated and removal to El Salvador had been deferred under the CAT, petitioner showed a serious question on the merits of his claim against removal to a third country.
2. A noncitizen initially detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) who was then released from DHS custody and remained at liberty for more than two years demonstrated a protected liberty interest in continued release.
3. Where the government seeks to revoke a noncitizen's prolonged release and redetain the person, due process requires notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker when the person has a protected liberty interest and the government identifies no changed circumstances justifying immediate detention.
4. Petitioner satisfied the temporary restraining order standard by showing serious questions on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored relief. To preserve the status quo, the appropriate remedy was immediate release, together with restraints against redetention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing and against transfer or removal without notice and a hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner demonstrated serious questions on the merits of his claim that he could not be removed to an undesignated third country without notice and an opportunity to seek withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture protection as to that country.
2. Whether petitioner had a protected liberty interest in continued release after DHS had released him from immigration custody for more than two years.
3. Whether due process required notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before DHS could revoke petitioner's release and redetain him.
4. Whether the temporary restraining order should require immediate release rather than merely an administrative hearing.

Disposition

other