Sahota v. Allen ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEEPAK SAHOTA, Case No. 20-cv-03180-WHO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. ENFORCE 10 NATHAN ALLEN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 28 Defendants. 11 12 On June 4, 2020, I granted in part petitioner Deepak Sahota’s Emergency Petition for Writ 13 of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). Dkt. No. 22. In that Order, I denied without prejudice his Petition 14 for habeas relief in light of COVID-19, but I granted his claim for habeas relief in light of his 15 unduly prolonged detention. I ordered that Sahota be given a bond hearing with appropriate 16 procedural protections within 30 days or else be released. Id. 17 Subsequently, a hearing was held on June 25, 2020. Dkt. No. 28-1. Sahota was 18 represented by counsel, who argued and introduced evidence in support of his position that he 19 should be released on bond. Id. On June 30, 2020, the IJ issued a decision finding that DHS had 20 met its burden of proving Sahota is a danger to the community and denied Sahota’s request for 21 release on bond. Id. 22 Sahota now seeks an order “enforcing” my prior order that he be provided with a bond 23 hearing “with appropriate procedural protections.” Sahota argues that the June 25, 2020 hearing 24 and June 30, 2020 IJ decision denied him due process because: (i) the IJ failed to require the 25 government to carry the burden of proof by clear-and-convincing evidence; (ii) the IJ failed to 26 consider alternatives to detention; and (iii) the IJ failed to account for the length of Mr. Sahota’s 27 1 || detention.' 2 Sahota’s motion to enforce is DENIED. What Sahota seeks is not a relief for deprivation 3 of a constitutional right, but instead relief from the IJ’s discretionary assessment of the evidence 4 and ultimate determination that Sahota should remain in custody. I do not have jurisdiction over 5 that claim. See Prieto-Romero vy. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). 6 Sahota argues that because proper procedural protections were not provided at his June 25, 7 || 2020 hearing he is stating a constitutional claim based on a denial of due process. Review of the 8 || transcript, decision, and plaintiff's counsel’s own declaration shows that procedural protections 9 || were provided. Nor does Sahota identify a “legal error” committed by the IJ. Instead, the IJ held 10 || the government to its burden of proof and found continued dangerousness by clear and 11 convincing evidence. That finding was supported by the government’s evidence regarding « 12 || Sahota’s criminal and probation history, despite Sahota’s sympathetic evidence regarding his 2 13 “positive factors” of rehabilitation and family support, all of which were expressly considered by v 14 || the IJ.? The IJ also acknowledged the length of Sahota’s confinement. Sahota’s real argument is 2 15 that the IJ should have exercised his discretion differently. That is a determination for the BIA, QO 16 || not me. = 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Zz 18 Dated: October 19, 2020 . 19 Tam H. Orrick 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 Pe 25 ' This matter is appropriate for resolution on the papers. Civ. L.R. 7-6. The October 21, 2020 hearing is VACATED. 26 || 2 This is not a case where the IJ did not “consider[] all the evidence in assessing petitioner’s 97 || present dangerousness” because the IJ misunderstood or mischaracterized evidence in the record or did not have all probative evidence in the record. See Obregon v. Sessions, 17-CV-01463- 2g || WHO, 2017 WL 1407889, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017); Ramos v. Sessions, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2018).