Capunay Guzman v. Joyce
1:25-cv-04777
S.D.N.Y.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Petitioner Derwin Capunay Guzman, a Peruvian citizen, was apprehended near the Mexican border in April 2024 and released pending immigration proceedings in New York.
- He timely filed for asylum and attended all scheduled immigration court hearings.
- In May 2025, ICE sought to dismiss his full removal proceedings in favor of expedited removal and detained him pending a ruling on its motion.
- Guzman did not file a motion for bond after his detention, though the immigration judge suggested he do so.
- Guzman sought habeas relief, claiming due process violations and requesting immediate release or a hearing where ICE would bear the burden to justify his detention.
- At the time of the court's decision, ICE’s motion to dismiss was still pending and no bond motion had been filed by Guzman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must Guzman exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief from detention? | Due to due process violations and lack of individualized assessment, exhaustion should not be required. | Administrative remedies (opposing ICE's motion, bond motion) remain available and must be pursued first. | Petitioner failed to exhaust; relief denied. |
| Does the risk of prolonged detention constitute irreparable harm excusing exhaustion? | Unlawful initial detention and ongoing risk create irreparable injury. | Risk alone, without actual prolonged detention, is not enough to excuse exhaustion. | Not sufficient to excuse exhaustion. |
| Are there exceptions to the prudential exhaustion requirement that apply? | Seeks exception due to futility, inadequate remedy, irreparable injury, or substantial constitutional question. | Administrative review could moot issues; exceptions do not apply because no remedies attempted. | No exceptions apply; must exhaust administrative remedies. |
| Is immediate judicial intervention required on due process grounds before bond hearing? | Detention without hearing or notice violates due process; immediate court relief needed. | Due process arguments premature; no bond motion filed or denied yet. | Premature; must first pursue administrative remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2003) (sets out the purposes and exceptions to prudential exhaustion in immigration cases)
- In re Adeniji, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1102 (BIA 1999) (establishes the burden of proof for noncitizens at bond hearings)
- In re G-N-C, 22 I. & N. Dec. 281 (BIA 1998) (clarifies the standards for dismissal of removal proceedings)