439 F.Supp.3d 576
D. Md.2020Background
- Petitioner Howard Duncan was born in Nigeria to a U.S. citizen father and Nigerian mother, lived in the U.S. as a child, applied for a certificate of citizenship before turning 18, and USCIS/AAO denied his claim under the Child Citizenship Act (CCA).
- DHS initiated removal proceedings based on several criminal convictions; Duncan has been detained by ICE pursuant to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) since July 14, 2015.
- The Fourth Circuit granted review and remanded to the BIA, finding the BIA applied an incorrect standard to Duncan’s CCA and CAT claims; the BIA appeal remains pending.
- Duncan filed a § 2241 habeas petition asserting: (1) unlawful detention as a U.S. citizen, (2) detention in violation of ICE policy, (3) constitutionally prolonged detention without adequate review, and (4) punitive/solitary confinement (now moot).
- The district court dismissed Duncan’s citizenship-based habeas claims for lack of jurisdiction under the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions (§ 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9)), but found his prolonged-detention claim cognizable and ordered a bond hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Duncan's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has jurisdiction to hear citizenship-based habeas claims when removal proceedings are pending | Duncan: his habeas challenges detention as a (purported) U.S. citizen and thus are constitutional claims independent of removal review | Government: § 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) channel all claims arising from removal proceedings (including citizenship claims) to the court of appeals | Court: Duncan's citizenship claim "arises from" removal proceedings and is barred in district court by § 1252; Claims One and Two dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether § 1252's jurisdictional limits violate the Suspension Clause as applied | Duncan: preclusion of district habeas review of citizenship claims suspends the writ | Government: Congress provided adequate substitute (PFR process) | Court: No Suspension Clause violation; PFR provides adequate substitute |
| Whether prolonged detention under § 1226(c) can violate due process | Duncan: four-plus years detention without adequate bond review is unreasonably prolonged and violates due process; seeks release or bond hearing | Government: Jennings and statute permit continued detention; Duncan's appeals helped cause delay and detention not unreasonable | Court: District has jurisdiction over prolonged-detention habeas claims; under balancing factors detention here is unreasonably prolonged |
| Appropriate remedy for prolonged § 1226(c) detention | Duncan: immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing | Government: resists immediate release and challenges court ordering a bond hearing | Court: Denied immediate release; ordered individualized bond hearing within 30 days with government required to prove by clear and convincing evidence flight risk or danger |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (interprets § 1226 statutory scheme and notes detention "pending a decision" on removal but does not foreclose due-process challenges to prolonged detention)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upholds mandatory detention during removal proceedings and observes a six-month detention as a benchmark for brevity)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (explains Suspension Clause and when Congress must provide adequate substitute for habeas)
- J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes claims "arising from" removal proceedings from collateral claims and endorses a case-by-case approach)
- Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2008) (held district courts may review prefinal removal detention claims based on citizenship in some circumstances)
- Gonzalez-Alarcon v. Macias, 884 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2018) (holds habeas petition challenging detention based on citizenship is an indirect challenge to removal and barred by § 1252)
- Johnson v. Whitehead, 647 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 2011) (affirmed dismissal of citizenship claim in habeas where issue arose in removal proceedings)
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognized that unreasonably prolonged § 1226(c) detention can violate due process)