Friday James v. Warden York County Prison
704 F. App'x 182
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- James, a Liberian national and lawful permanent resident, was convicted in 2012 of 26 counts of aiding and abetting tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) and sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment.
- The government charged him as removable based on an aggravated-felony finding tied to fraud loss and lodged an ICE detainer; he completed his federal sentence on August 9, 2016, and was held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) initially found James removable because his offense “involves fraud…loss…exceeds $10,000” (INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i)); the BIA remanded because the Presentence Report (PSR) did not clearly tether the loss to James.
- After additional evidence and a remand hearing, the IJ again concluded James was removable; proceedings remain pending before the IJ.
- James filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition in district court seeking release from mandatory detention; the district court denied relief, finding detention proper under § 1226(c) and that four months’ detention was not constitutionally excessive.
- James appealed; the Third Circuit affirmed, holding the government had “reason to believe” he fell within § 1226(c) and that a four-month detention without a bond hearing was not unreasonable under precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1226(c) detention is unlawful because IJ’s removability finding is erroneous | James: IJ’s removability determination is wrong; thus mandatory detention under § 1226(c) is unlawful | Gov: § 1226(c) applies if there is "reason to believe" alien committed a covered offense; evidence and stipulation support that belief | Held: Government had "reason to believe" James committed a covered offense; § 1226(c) detention lawful pending removal proceedings |
| Whether four months’ detention without a bond hearing is unreasonably long | James: Four months detained without adequate review is constitutionally excessive | Gov: Four months is within the reasonable timeframe given removal proceedings and precedent | Held: Four-month detention did not rise to constitutional concern; reasonable under Diop/Demore/Chavez-Alvarez framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (§ 1226 allows reasonable detention but requires individualized review when detention grows prolonged)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upheld mandatory detention during removal proceedings as presumptively constitutional in many cases)
- Leslie v. Attorney General, 678 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2012) (addressed procedural due process constraints on immigration detention)
- Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) (analyzed how prolonged detention shifts the balance in favor of individualized release hearings)