The UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic won a big detention case in the Ninth Circuit, with an opinion in Singh v. Holder by Judge Raymond Fisher and joined by Judges Susan Graber and Jay Bybee. Here is the punchline:
"In Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008), we held that aliens facing prolonged detention while their petitions for review of their removal orders are pending are entitled to a bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge. In this appeal we address certain procedures that must be followed in those hearings to comport with due process. We hold as an initial matter that a federal district court has habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Casas bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims and legal error. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516-17 (2003). We also hold that, given the substantial liberty interests at stake in Casas hearings, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified. We further hold that the immigration court is required to make a contemporaneous record of Casas hearings and that an audio recording would suffice."
Download UC Davis Clinic Victory
Professor Holly S. Cooper and law students Kelly Martin and Scott Grzenczyk (argued) of the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic, Davis represented Vijendra Singh.
Amicus briefs supporting Singh were submitted by Judy Rabinovitz (ACLU Foundation Immigrant’s Rights Project), Ahilan T. Arulanantham (argued) (ACLU Foundation of Southern California), and Jayashri Srikantiah (Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic).
The UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic won a big detention case in the Ninth Circuit, with an opinion in Singh v. Holder by Judge Raymond Fisher and joined by Judges Susan Graber and Jay Bybee. Here is the punchline:
ReplyDelete"In Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008), we held that aliens facing prolonged detention while their petitions for review of their removal orders are pending are entitled to a bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge. In this appeal we address certain procedures that must be followed in those hearings to comport with due process. We hold as an initial matter that a federal district court has habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Casas bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims and legal error. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516-17 (2003). We also hold that, given the substantial liberty interests at stake in Casas hearings, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified. We further hold that the immigration court is required to make a contemporaneous record of Casas hearings and that an audio recording would suffice."
Download UC Davis Clinic Victory
Professor Holly S. Cooper and law students Kelly Martin and Scott Grzenczyk (argued) of the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic, Davis represented Vijendra Singh.
Amicus briefs supporting Singh were submitted by Judy Rabinovitz (ACLU Foundation Immigrant’s Rights Project), Ahilan T. Arulanantham (argued) (ACLU Foundation of Southern California), and Jayashri Srikantiah (Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic).