NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAM VI QUAN, No. 21-15416 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08118-LB v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 12, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: BOGGS,** OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Lam Vi Quan appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus, which challenged his continued detention during the pendency of his immigration removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Reviewing the court’s order de novo, Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202-03 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm. 1. As a preliminary matter, the parties dispute whether the district court applied the correct standard of review to the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) conclusion that Quan was a danger to the community. The district court stated that, in reviewing an IJ’s bond determination, the court “may not second guess the IJ’s weighing of the evidence” and that “its review is limited to whether the IJ’s decision reflects clear legal error or is unsupported by sufficient evidence.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Quan, however, argues that because his habeas petition raised claims of constitutional and legal error—namely, that the bond hearing violated his rights under the Due Process Clause and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)—the appropriate standard of review was de novo. We agree with Quan that the district court should have reviewed de novo whether the government provided clear and convincing evidence that Quan was a danger to the community. Cf. United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985) (Kennedy, J.) (applying de novo review to mixed questions of law and fact raised in criminal, pre-trial bond determinations); Singh, 638 F.3d at 1202- 03 (holding that the court of appeals reviews due process claims and questions of law raised in habeas petitions de novo). Reviewing this question de novo 2 ourselves, we conclude that the government satisfied its burden of proof. See Miranda v. City of Casa Grande, 15 F.4th 1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We may affirm the district court on any ground supported in the record.”). Among the factors a court may consider in assessing whether a noncitizen detainee is a danger to the community is his “criminal record, including the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recency of such activity, and the seriousness of the offenses.” Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (B.I.A. 2006). Here, Quan’s criminal record is indeed extensive, including convictions for petty theft, driving without …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals