119 F. Supp. 3d 472
E.D. Va.2015Background
- R.M.B., a Guatemalan minor, was apprehended near the U.S.–Mexico border in December 2013 and classified by CBP as an Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC); he was transferred to ORR/HHS custody and has remained in secure ORR facilities.
- At apprehension R.M.B. was a runaway living apart from his mother, with a history of criminal charges, serious substance abuse, and admitted involvement in organized smuggling and gang-related violence.
- USCIS had placed R.M.B. (via his mother’s I-360) in deferred action and immigration proceedings against him were later terminated by an IJ in April 2015.
- R.M.B.’s mother, D.B., sought his release from ORR custody; ORR conducted a home study and clinical evaluations and denied release for safety and supervision concerns; reconsideration was also denied.
- D.B. filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking R.M.B.’s release; the district court held oral argument and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / next-friend standing | D.B. can sue as next friend for her minor son | ORR does not contest jurisdiction | Court found next-friend standing and proper jurisdiction under §2241 |
| Whether R.M.B. was lawfully classified a UAC | D.B.: R.M.B. lived with her and therefore was never "unaccompanied" so ORR never had authority | DHS/CBP had discretion and reasonably found no parent/guardian was available at apprehension | Court held CBP’s discretionary UAC classification and resulting ORR custody do not violate federal law and are not reviewable on §2241 habeas grounds |
| Effect of termination of immigration proceedings | D.B.: Termination means immigration detention authority ends and child must be released | Government: R.M.B. is in ORR custody (not immigration detention) and ORR retains authority under statutory UAC scheme until a proper custodian is approved | Court held termination of removal proceedings does not require ORR release; ORR custody is authorized by statute |
| Due process challenge | D.B.: Continued ORR custody infringes substantive and procedural due process and parental liberty interests | Government: Flores and statutory scheme permit ORR custody and procedures provided satisfy due process; ORR followed home-study and review processes | Court held no constitutional violation: Flores controls and ORR procedures are adequate; denial of release was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (next-friend standing requirements)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (habeas jurisdiction requires custody in violation of federal law)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (framework for due process challenges to juvenile alien detention)
- Bowrin v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 194 F.3d 483 (limits habeas review of discretionary agency determinations)
- Gutierrez-Chavez v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 298 F.3d 824 (habeas not available to challenge discretionary agency decisions)