Diaz v. Hott
297 F. Supp. 3d 618
E.D. Va.2018Background
- Three named petitioners were previously removed, returned to home countries, faced death threats, and reentered the U.S.; DHS reinstated their prior removal orders and detained them at ICE facilities in Virginia.
- Each petitioner passed a reasonable-fear screening and is in withholding-only proceedings (seeking withholding/deferral of removal); those proceedings are pending before immigration judges.
- Petitioners filed a class habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking bond hearings, arguing they are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (which permits bond) rather than § 1231 (which governs post-removal detention and generally bars bond).
- The central, undisputed factual premise: petitioners are removable but face a pending determination on whether they can be removed in light of withholding/Convention Against Torture protections.
- The court framed the dispositive legal question as statutory: whether detention authority for persons in withholding-only proceedings is § 1226 or § 1231; if §1226, bond hearings are required unless §1226(c) mandatory detention applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of detention authority (§1226 v. §1231) | Petitioners: withholding-only proceedings mean removal is not finally "to be executed," so §1226(a) applies (detention pending decision) | Respondents: reinstated removal orders are administratively final under §1231(a)(5), so §1231 governs detention | Court: §1226 governs while withholding-only proceedings are pending because removal is not yet executable; summary judgment for petitioners |
| Right to bond hearing | Petitioners: detained under §1226(a) → entitled to bond hearings (unless §1226(c) mandatory) | Respondents: if §1231 governs, no bond right; alternatively, removal could be to a third country so removal is not "pending" | Court: same as first issue—§1226 governs, so bond hearings are appropriate (subject to §1226(c) for certain criminal aliens) |
| Class certification commonality/typicality | Petitioners: single common legal question (statutory source of detention) resolves class claims in one stroke; named petitioners typical and adequate | Respondents: judicial disagreement and presence of §1226(c) criminal aliens defeat commonality/typicality | Court: commonality and typicality satisfied; differences (e.g., §1226(c) applicability) do not defeat class-wide resolution |
| Preclusion of class-wide relief under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) | Petitioners: §1252(f)(1) bars injunctions that restrain operation of INA provisions, but here relief would enforce INA as interpreted, not enjoin its operation | Respondents: §1252(f)(1) prohibits class-wide injunctive relief related to removal provisions | Court: §1252(f)(1) does not bar class-wide relief here because petitioners seek compliance with the INA as interpreted, not an injunction against the statute's operation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (commonality requirement for class certification)
- Guerra v. Shanahan, 831 F.3d 59 (2d Cir.) (holding detainees in similar circumstances detained under §1226)
- Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, 862 F.3d 881 (9th Cir.) (contrasting view that reinstated-order detainees are under §1231)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (due process limits on post-removal detention)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (agency finality principles)
- Mejia v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 573 (4th Cir.) (discussion of finality in related contexts)
- Preap v. Johnson, 831 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (class relief and detention statutes)