DEONARINE v. ODDO
3:25-cv-00081
W.D. Pa.Jul 11, 2025Background
- Andrew Deonarine, a lawful permanent resident and citizen of Suriname, has been detained by ICE at Moshannon Valley Processing Center since November 9, 2023.
- Deonarine pled guilty to sexual assault (second degree) in Connecticut and was sentenced to 10 years, with all but 15 months suspended and 10 years' probation.
- He was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) due to his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, classified as an aggravated felony.
- Removal proceedings were initiated, and an immigration judge found Deonarine removable; a removal order was entered on April 15, 2025.
- Deonarine filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated due process.
- The court considered whether his continued pre-removal detention required a bond hearing under the Due Process Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to Review Mandatory Detention | Constitutional habeas claims are reviewable | Court lacks jurisdiction to challenge mandatory detention | Court has jurisdiction over constitutional claims |
| Prolonged Detention without Bond Hearing | Over 20 months is unreasonable under Due Process | Detention is not unduly prolonged or unreasonable | Detention unreasonably long; bond hearing required |
| Entitlement to Bond Hearing | Due Process requires an individualized bond hearing | No entitlement due to mandatory detention status | Deonarine entitled to prompt bond hearing |
| Immediate Release | Seeks immediate release as alternative relief | Opposes release, argues detention is lawful | Immediate release denied; only bond hearing ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (federal courts have habeas jurisdiction over immigration detention cases involving constitutional claims)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (district courts retain jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to mandatory detention)
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (prolonged mandatory detention may require a bond hearing; due process considerations)
- Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) (prolonged pre-removal detention can rise to due process concern)
- German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020) (sets factors to assess unreasonableness of detention and requirement for bond hearing)