358 F. Supp. 3d 170
D.N.H.2019Background
- Patrice Compere, a Haitian national present in the U.S. since age 2, has multiple prior drug convictions and is subject to a final removal order; he filed a BIA motion to reopen based on new evidence and expert declarations about conditions in Haiti.
- Compere was detained by ICE in October 2017 after seeking help for work authorization; removal proceedings resulted in denial of CAT relief and affirmance by the BIA; the First Circuit denied a stay pending appeal.
- Compere filed a motion to reopen the BIA on November 8, 2018, and an emergency stay request was denied by the BIA; he then filed a § 2241 habeas petition seeking a stay of removal so he can litigate the motion to reopen and obtain appellate review.
- The government planned immediate removal to Haiti despite the pending motion; Compere submitted new expert evidence that he likely would face detention, inhumane conditions, threats, language barriers, and inability to communicate with counsel if removed.
- The government argued district courts lack habeas jurisdiction over such challenges due to immigration jurisdiction-stripping provisions (8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9), 1252(g)); Compere argued those provisions cannot be applied here because doing so would violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1252 jurisdiction-stripping bars district-court habeas review of a stay of removal when a motion to reopen is pending and removal would foreclose litigation | Compere: application of § 1252 would effectively suspend habeas because removal would make effective judicial review impossible | Government: § 1252(b)(9) and § 1252(g) strip district courts of jurisdiction over such challenges | Court: § 1252 provisions cannot be applied to deny habeas relief here because Suspension Clause bars depriving Compere of a forum when removal would foreclose meaningful review |
| Whether administrative remedies (BIA emergency stay process) are an adequate substitute for habeas | Compere: BIA emergency stay is discretionary, unreviewable, and can leave him without any Article III remedy if denied | Government: Compere had an administrative avenue (BIA emergency stay) and appellate review after final agency action | Court: administrative emergency-stay process is inadequate where removal would realistically prevent litigating the motion to reopen; habeas relief required |
| Whether a stay of removal is a cognizable form of habeas relief in this context | Compere: stay is appropriate habeas remedy to preserve ability to litigate motion to reopen and seek appellate review | Government: relied on precedents limiting habeas relief for removal-related claims | Court: a stay is permissible habeas relief here to protect federal statutory rights; historical and circuit precedent support stay relief |
| Whether Compere demonstrated he would be unable to litigate his motion to reopen if removed | Compere: expert evidence and family/security facts show likely detention, language barriers, reliance on insecure family, and practical inability to litigate | Government: disputed sufficiency of evidence | Court: factual finding that more likely than not Compere would be unable to litigate the motion if removed; stay granted until BIA resolves motion and any appeal is available |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (Suspension Clause limits Congress’ ability to eliminate habeas review where remedies are inadequate)
- I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (habeas historically available to challenge removal orders; some judicial intervention required)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (motion to reopen is an important statutory safeguard)
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (right to seek judicial review from denial of motion to reopen)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (Supreme Court analysis of scope of certain § 1252 provisions)
- Santana v. Holder, 731 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2013) (conditioning statutory right to reopen on removal undermines that right)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (discussed scope of habeas relief for removal to foreign custody)
- Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229 (1953) (habeas available to review deportation-related custody)
- Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372 (1977) (adequate and effective alternative remedies may avoid Suspension Clause problems)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (historical importance of habeas corpus)