A federal judge has ruled that a Haitian immigrant who has been been held in immigration detention for eight months following two convictions for bending MetroCards to access the New York City subway should be subject to a bond hearing to weigh his release.

U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan of the Southern District of New York found that the prolonged detention of Augustin Sajous, who came to the United States from Haiti in 1972 when he was 14 years old, without a bond hearing violates his due process rights.

In her 30-page ruling, Nathan said the burden of proof for keeping Sajous, a legal permanent resident, locked up in a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in New Jersey is on the government. She said he must be released unless it can be proved that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community.

“The public interest is best served by ensuring the constitutional rights of persons within the United States are upheld,” Nathan said. The judge said the bond hearing must be held within two weeks.

Nathan also granted Sajous' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Sajous, who is 60 years old and suffers from schizophrenia, has succeeded on the merits in the case and that his continued detention runs afoul of his due process rights.

Attorneys from the New York Civil Liberties Union and Brooklyn Defender Services, who also represent Sajous in a proposed class action against the government challenging its denial of bond hearings to immigrants, mostly hailed Nathan's decision as a victory.

But Nathan did not side with Sajous' attorneys on their argument that there should be a brightline, six-month requirement to hold bond hearings for detained immigrants, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit established in a 2015 ruling.

NYCLU staff attorney Jordan Wells, who appeared for Sajous on May 18 at a two-hour hearing before Nathan, noted that the Second Circuit found in Lora v. Shanahan that a brightline rule was necessary to preclude “inconsistency and confusion” among district courts, which are left determining on a case-by-case basis when detainees should get bond hearings.

Andrea Sáenz, a supervising attorney for the immigration practice at Brooklyn Defender Services also appeared on Sajous' behalf at the hearing.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon Waterman of the Southern District appeared for the government in the case. His office declined to comment.

A spokeswoman for ICE also declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

Immigrant detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. §1226, which allows immigration judges to hold bond hearings for detainee, but requires mandatory deportation for detainees who have committed “crimes of moral turpitude,” as well as drug or firearms offenses, aggravated felonies or terrorism.

In two separate incidents in 2015, Sajous' was convicted of third-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument and third-degree attempted forgery for bending MetroCards so that they could be used to pass through New York City subway turnstiles even when the cards had a zero balance.

ICE contends that Sajous' convictions count as crimes of moral turpitude; in September, ICE agents arrested Sajous outside of a Brooklyn courthouse where he appeared on charges related to drug possession and the bent MetroCards. He has been detained ever since.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling on a case sent up from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, found that federal immigration statutes do not guarantee bond hearings for ICE detainees.

The Ninth Circuit's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §1226 in Jennings v. Rodriguez, was identical to the Second Circuit's holding in Lora, thus SCOTUS vacated the ruling in Lora and remanded it to the appeal court for further proceedings.

In March, New York Immigration Court Judge Thomas Mulligan, who presides over Sajous' immigration case, declined to hold a bond hearing for Sajous, citing the vacatur of the Second Circuit's ruling in Lora.

Turning to Lora, Nathan said the Second Circuit used a “constitutional avoidance” approach — the appeals court found that the six-month requirement was necessary to avoid violations of detainees' due process rights, Nathan reasoned, not that the Constitution mandates that a detainee get a bond hearing within six months.

Wells said that, because Nathan declined to apply a brightline rule, detainees in situations similar to his client's may be subjected to “miniature trials” just to succeed on motions for bond hearings; Sajous had a legal team on hand to fight for his right to a hearing, Wells said, but other detainees might not be so lucky.

“Many immigrants may remain detained with no other options than costly, inaccessible federal litigation,” Wells said.