Opinion ID: 3213240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: bond regulations

Text: When detained criminal aliens become entitled to a bond hearing, the agency shall conduct a bond inquiry under the procedures outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8) and (d). These are the existing regulations governing bond proceedings for non-criminal aliens detained under § 1226(a). We see three primary reasons for using the existing regulations that govern non-criminal aliens. First, as we indicate above, subsection (c) of § 1226 is an exception to subsection (a). Generally, the Attorney General has the discretion to release aliens in removal proceedings on either bond or conditional parole. INA § 236(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2). Congress, however, circumscribed the Attorney General’s discretion for that subset of aliens in removal proceedings who have committed certain criminal offenses. INA § 236(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). It therefore makes sense that, once the government can no longer constitutionally detain a criminal alien under subsection (c) without a bond hearing, the criminal alien’s detention 42 Case: 14-11421 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 43 of 79 defaults to subsection (a) that governs the detention of non-criminal aliens. And subsection (a) carries with it regulations governing bond.9 Second, our reluctance to formulate from scratch the bond procedures to be used, and our decision to instead defer to the agency’s preexisting regulations, comports with basic principles of administrative law. Courts afford agencies considerable deference in their policy realms and do not rewrite or create regulations for them to follow. See Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89, 98 n.8, 104 S. Ct. 439, 444 n.8 (1983) (“[A]n agency acting within its authority to make policy choices consistent with the congressional mandate should receive considerable deference from courts . . . .”); Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 733 F.3d 1106, 1115 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The court’s role is to ensure that the agency came to a rational conclusion, not to conduct its own investigation and substitute its own judgment for the administrative agency’s decision.” (quotation marks omitted)). DHS has 9 This is how detention beyond the 90-day removal period operates for criminal aliens who cannot be removed to another country. If the Attorney General chooses to release a criminal alien on terms of supervision, the alien’s supervision is governed by the statute and regulations controlling non-criminal aliens’ supervision. See INA § 241(a)(6), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), cross-referencing INA § 241(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). We regard this as further evidence that the statutes relating to non-criminal aliens provide the general rules for detention, and the statutes governing criminal aliens represent exceptions. 43 Case: 14-11421 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 44 of 79 already determined how to fairly and efficiently administer bond hearings, and we do not disturb its reasoned judgment. 10 Third, while Sopo asks us to shift the burden of proof to the government, that would give criminal aliens a benefit that non-criminal aliens do not have. See Reid v. Donelan, 22 F. Supp. 3d 84, 92-93 (D. Mass. 2014) (explaining why the bond regulations that apply to non-criminal aliens should apply to criminal aliens once they become entitled to a bond hearing), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 819 F.3d 486 (1st Cir. 2016).11 We recognize that, by the time a criminal alien becomes eligible for a bond hearing, he has already experienced a lengthy detention. That detention, however, occurs because Congress enacted the mandatory detention statute in § 1226(c), a statutory approach that comparatively disadvantages aliens who commit crimes over law-abiding aliens in removal proceedings. Accordingly, the agency shall follow 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c) to afford the detainee alien with an opportunity to obtain bond from the District Director, and if 10 There has been no separate constitutional challenge in this case to the bond regulations set for in 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8) and (d) that apply to non-criminal aliens. This decision now affords criminal aliens subject to mandatory detention the benefit of these regulations when the criminal alien’s statutorily mandated detention under § 1226(c) becomes unreasonably prolonged, triggering the need for an individualized bond hearing. 11 Although it reversed the district court’s ruling as to the class claim, the First Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s ruling that Reid was entitled to a bond hearing under the regulations effectuating § 1226(a). See Reid, 819 F.3d at 491, 501-02. The First Circuit also noted that, after Reid received a bond hearing, the government granted him bond. See id. at 501. 44 Case: 14-11421 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 45 of 79 necessary, to appeal to the IJ and then to the BIA under the provisions outlined in § 1236.1(d). See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c), (d). Like non-criminal aliens, the criminal alien carries the burden of proof and must show that he is not a flight risk or danger to others. Id. § 1236.1(c)(8). The IJs and the BIA already have experience applying these regulations and have standards to guide them in implementing the regulations. See, e.g., In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) (announcing nine factors for IJs to evaluate when determining if an alien poses a danger or is likely to abscond). We are confident that criminal aliens will have an adequate opportunity to obtain release under the existing regulations that apply to non-criminal aliens. Having settled on the reasonableness standard and the logistics of bond, we turn back to Sopo and his § 2241 petition.