Chica-Iglesia v. Lowe
1:18-cv-00035
M.D. Penn.Apr 25, 2018Background
- Petitioner Alfredo Chica-Iglesia, a Salvadoran national, was taken into ICE custody on May 22, 2017 after ICE determined there was no record of lawful entry and charged him as removable.
- He had state criminal convictions (terroristic threats; firearms offense) and was placed in removal proceedings; an IJ ordered removal on June 6, 2017 and the BIA denied his appeal on February 2, 2018.
- The Third Circuit granted a temporary stay of removal pending consideration of a stay motion, so the removal order was not administratively final when Chica-Iglesia filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- Respondent argued Chica-Iglesia is an "arriving alien" inadmissible under INA § 212(a) and therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (not entitled to bond).
- Petitioner initially argued § 1226(c) applied but later conceded § 1225(b) governs; either statutory scheme, the government asserted, does not guarantee periodic bond hearings.
- The district court dismissed the habeas petition, relying chiefly on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez that statutes authorizing detention under §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) do not require periodic bond hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chica-Iglesia, classified as an "arriving alien," is entitled to periodic bond hearings while held pending removal | Chica-Iglesia sought release via habeas under § 2241 (initially argued § 1226(c) applied) | ICE: he is an arriving alien detained under § 1225(b) and not entitled to bond; if § 1226(c) applied, it also forecloses release except in narrow circumstances | Court held no entitlement to periodic bond hearings; detention under § 1225(b) (and § 1226(c) if applied) permits detention until proceedings conclude per Jennings v. Rodriguez |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (holding §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) do not require periodic bond hearings and authorize detention until proceedings conclude)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upholding mandatory detention during removal proceedings under § 1226(c) and recognizing detention’s termination point is the end of proceedings)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (addressing limits on post-removal-order detention under § 1231 and the need for reasonably necessary confinement)