Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04148/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04148-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEP DE PAZ SALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04148-KAW 

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY 

MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 19

On July 18, 2019, Petitioner Josep De Paz Sales filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

seeking immediate release or a new bond hearing. (Pet. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 1.) On September 30, 2019, 

the Court granted the petition and ordered “the Government to provide Petitioner with another 

bond hearing within twenty-one days. At the hearing, the Government must establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community in order to 

continue his detention.” (Sept. 30, 2019 Ord. at 13, Dkt. No. 17.)

On October 21, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant emergency motion to enforce the 

judgment. (Pet.’s Emergency Mot. at 1, Dkt. No. 19.) Petitioner states that he was provided with 

a bond hearing on October 11, 2019. The immigration judge (“IJ”), however, did not issue a 

custody decision. (Id.) Instead, the IJ “indicated that he needed additional time to consider his 

decision, listen to an audio recording of Petitioner’s initial August 2018 bond hearing, and issue a 

written decision. He stated it would take him three days from October 11 to issue his decision.” 

(Id. (internal citations omitted).) As of the date of Petitioner’s motion, the IJ has not issued a bond 

decision, nor has he provided any date by which a decision will be issued despite repeated 

inquiries. (Pet.’s Emergency Mot. at 1-2.) Petitioner asserts that a bond decision is typically 

made on the same day or immediately after the bond hearing. (Id.) 

Case 4:19-cv-04148-KAW Document 22 Filed 10/22/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Since the bond hearing, Petitioner has twice inflicted self-harm in an attempt to end his 

life. (Gupta Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, Dkt. No. 19-1.) Petitioner was placed on suicide watch on or around 

October 16, 2019, and was moved to a medical unit on or around October 21, 2019, where he is 

kept inside without any outside contact for nearly twenty-three hours a day. (Gupta Decl. ¶¶ 7, 

13.) 

On October 22, 2019, the Government filed an opposition to the emergency motion. 

(Gov.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 20.) The Government argued that the Court’s order only required a bond 

hearing, which Petitioner has received. (Id. at 1.) That same day, Petitioner filed his reply. 

(Pet.’s Reply, Dkt. No. 21.)

The Court DENIES Petitioner’s emergency motion. The Court ordered Petitioner to 

receive, within twenty-one days, a bond hearing, at which the Government would have the burden 

of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was a flight risk or a danger to the 

community. (Sept. 30, 2019 Ord. at 13.) The Court did not, as the Government points out, require 

a ruling by that date. Petitioner cites no authority for the Court to order release at this time.

The Court observes, however, that absent a ruling on the bond hearing, the Court’s grant of 

relief is rendered meaningless. The purpose of the bond hearing is to obtain a ruling; if the 

Government provides a hearing but fails to issue a ruling, it is the equivalent of having no hearing 

at all, depriving Petitioner of the liberty interest at stake. This is particularly the case here, where

it is not clear why the IJ required additional time to review the prior hearing when any release 

decision would presumably be based on the evidence presented at the October 11, 2019 hearing, 

after applying the correct legal standard. It is also not clear why a decision has not been issued in 

the time frame stated by the IJ, as more than ten days have passed since the hearing.

Unnecessarily withholding a hearing constitutes a miscarriage of justice. This is especially so 

given that the Government does not dispute that bond decisions are usually issued on the same day 

as the hearing.

///

///

///

Case 4:19-cv-04148-KAW Document 22 Filed 10/22/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In short, the longer it takes for the IJ to render a decision, the more it seems that Petitioner 

has effectively been denied a bond hearing. Accordingly, if a bond decision is not issued within 

seven days of the date of this order, the Court will entertain a renewed petition for release.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04148-KAW Document 22 Filed 10/22/19 Page 3 of 3