Sergio Rocha Medina v. Jim Arnott, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted Sergio Rocha Medina’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention and termination of parole or deferred action without prior notice or an opportunity for review. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge procedural due process framework, the court concluded that continued detention without individualized custody review violated the Fifth Amendment. The court ordered Medina’s immediate release and addressed his potential eligibility to seek attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Holdings

1. The continued detention of a long-term DACA recipient without prior notice and without any opportunity for individualized custody review violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
2. A Notice to Appear alone did not satisfy petitioner's procedural due process rights where it was accompanied by detention without a meaningful opportunity to challenge custody.
3. Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam and Demore v. Kim did not foreclose petitioner's due process claim because those decisions addressed materially different circumstances involving admission at or near the border or mandatory detention of a limited class of criminal aliens.
4. Immediate release, rather than a futile order requiring a bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy because the immigration court had determined that it lacked jurisdiction to conduct a bond hearing and DHS provided no alternative mechanism for individualized custody review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether continued immigration detention without prior written notice, a bond hearing, or any individualized custody review violated petitioner's procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether the issuance of a Notice to Appear alone satisfied petitioner's due process rights.
3. Whether the district court should order immediate release rather than a bond hearing when the immigration court had determined that it lacked jurisdiction to conduct a custody hearing and DHS provided no alternative review mechanism.
4. Whether petitioner could pursue attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Disposition

writ_granted