Jose German Santos v. Warden Pike County Correctiona
965 F.3d 203 (2020)
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires that when a lawful permanent resident is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) for an unreasonably prolonged period pending removal proceedings, the government must provide a bond hearing where it bears the burden of justifying continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.
Facts:
- Jose German Santos, a native of the Dominican Republic, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2006.
- In late 2017, German Santos pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania state court to possessing marijuana with intent to deliver it.
- In December 2017, immigration officials arrested German Santos, believing his conviction constituted an "aggravated felony" under immigration law.
- German Santos was taken to the Pike County Correctional Facility and detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) while awaiting a decision in his removal proceedings.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals initially affirmed an immigration judge's finding that German Santos's conviction was an aggravated felony, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
- The government later moved for remand, and the Board of Immigration Appeals reconsidered, holding that German Santos’s conviction was not an aggravated felony and remanding his case for a hearing on his application for cancellation of removal.
- An immigration judge subsequently denied German Santos's application for cancellation of removal.
- As of the court's opinion, German Santos had been detained for more than two-and-a-half years (over 30 months).
Procedural Posture:
- In June 2018, an immigration judge ordered German Santos removed and denied his requests for relief from removal.
- German Santos timely appealed the immigration judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- The BIA initially rejected German Santos's appeal due to an unpaid filing fee, but after refiling, it considered the merits and affirmed the immigration judge's finding that he had committed an aggravated felony and was ineligible for cancellation of removal.
- German Santos petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the BIA's decision.
- The government moved the Third Circuit to remand the case to the BIA to reconsider its application of the modified categorical approach.
- The Third Circuit granted the government's motion to remand.
- While awaiting the BIA's decision on remand, German Santos filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court denied German Santos’s habeas petition, holding that his detention (then fifteen months long) was constitutional and that Jennings v. Rodriguez had abrogated the Third Circuit's precedents (Diop and Chavez-Alvarez).
- German Santos timely appealed the District Court's denial of his habeas petition to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause require the government to provide a bond hearing, at which it must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, for a lawful permanent resident who has been detained for an unreasonably long period under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) pending removal proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Bibas, Circuit Judge
Yes, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a bond hearing, with the burden of justifying continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, for a lawful permanent resident whose detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) has become unreasonably prolonged. The court clarified that while Jennings v. Rodriguez abrogated the statutory interpretation aspects of its prior precedents, Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec. and Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, which had used the constitutional-avoidance canon to read a reasonableness limit into § 1226(c), Jennings explicitly reserved constitutional claims for remand and thus left the constitutional analysis of Diop and Chavez-Alvarez intact. Therefore, the constitutionality of detention under § 1226(c) remains a function of its length, becoming unconstitutional when it grows unreasonable without a bond hearing to justify continued confinement. Applying a four-factor test, the court found German Santos's detention unreasonable because: 1) its duration of over two-and-a-half years is five times longer than the average six-month detention upheld in Demore v. Kim and exceeds the periods found unreasonable in prior cases; 2) his removal proceedings are likely to continue for many more months, including potential further appeals; and 3) his conditions of confinement in a prison alongside convicted criminals for 23 hours a day are indistinguishable from criminal punishment, despite the civil nature of removal proceedings. The court determined the reasons for delay did not favor either party, as BIA errors were not due to carelessness or bad faith, and German Santos's good-faith appeals should not be held against him. Regarding the bond hearing procedures, the court affirmed that the government bears the burden of persuasion, drawing on Diop. Furthermore, consistent with Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison and the principle that a higher standard of proof is required when liberty is at stake, the court held the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, showing that the individual is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it clarifies the enduring vitality of constitutional due process challenges to prolonged immigration detention under § 1226(c) following Jennings v. Rodriguez. It solidifies the Third Circuit's framework for assessing the reasonableness of such detention and establishes a robust standard of review by requiring the government to prove the necessity of continued detention by clear and convincing evidence at a bond hearing. This ruling reinforces protections for the liberty interests of lawful permanent residents and provides a crucial check against potentially arbitrary and excessively lengthy civil detention, impacting how immigration authorities manage pre-removal detentions and how lower courts assess habeas petitions.
