Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

habeas corpusleasefelonymisdemeanordue process
appealleasedue processdeportationrespondent

Related Cases

Marquez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder
View Case »
Abedini v. Government of Islamic Republic of Iran
View Case »
Executive Cleaning Services of Long Island Ltd.; U.S. v.
View Case »
Madrid-Tavarez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Galan-Reyes v. Acoff

Facts

Omar Galan-Reyes, a 26-year-old Mexican citizen, has lived in the U.S. since 2000 and was granted DACA status in 2015, which expired in 2017. He has been in immigration detention since September 2019 after an arrest related to possession of a firearm, but no charges were filed. He has been denied bond multiple times based on claims he is a danger to the community, despite having no felony convictions and only a misdemeanor for resisting a peace officer.

Galan-Reyes has been denied bond by an Immigration Judge (IJ) several times (most recently on March 25, 2020), based on a finding that he is a danger to the community because of his arrests. (Doc. 1; Doc. 10, p. 2). He has appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Doc. 1, p. 3; Doc. 10, pp. 3-4; Doc. 10-1, p. 4-6).

Issue

Whether Galan-Reyes' continued detention without bond violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process.

The Petition raises two claims: (1) Galan-Reyes' ongoing detention violates his [*722] Fifth Amendment right to due process because he has not been convicted of any offense which mandates deportation, he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk, and the conditions at Pulaski, which has multiple confirmed cases of COVID-19, place him at risk of serious illness or death; and (2) by keeping him in detention, ICE has acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of the Administrative [**4] Procedures Act.

Rule

Detainees are entitled to procedural due process regarding restraints on their liberty, and the government must justify continued civil confinement with clear and convincing evidence that the detainee poses a flight risk or danger to the community.

It has long [**6] been established that detainees are entitled to procedural due process in relation to restraints on their liberty. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 155 L. Ed. 2d 724 (2003); Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690.

Analysis

The court determined that the government failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Galan-Reyes posed a danger to the public or was a flight risk. His past arrests did not result in charges, and he has significant family ties in the U.S. The court also considered the conditions of his detention during the COVID-19 pandemic, which posed a serious health risk.

Here, the government has failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Galan Reyes poses a danger to the public if he is released. Neither of his 2019 arrests resulted in any criminal charges against him, much less a conviction. Respondents' assertion that he poses a danger to the community is based solely on police reports. Those reports reflect that in both instances, Galan-Reyes was in the company of another person who possessed a firearm, and in one case, was at a location where shots were fired. (Doc. 10, p. 11).

Conclusion

The court granted Galan-Reyes' petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered his immediate release from detention.

For the foregoing reasons, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that his release would endanger the public or that he is a flight risk, coupled with the known risks associated with the presence of COVID-19 at Pulaski, this Court concludes that Galan-Reyes' continued indefinite detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Who won?

Omar Galan-Reyes prevailed in the case because the court found that his continued detention violated his due process rights and that the government did not provide sufficient justification for his detention.

Omar Galan-Reyes prevailed in the case because the court found that his continued detention violated his due process rights and that the government did not provide sufficient justification for his detention.

You must be