Jalloh v. Garland
5:22-cv-00908
W.D. Okla.May 26, 2023Background
- Petitioner Bubakarr Jalloh, convicted of aggravated battery and cocaine possession, was placed in immigration custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) on October 26, 2021.
- An Immigration Judge ordered removal on April 20, 2023; Jalloh’s appeal to the BIA is pending.
- Jalloh filed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of his prolonged mandatory detention.
- Magistrate Judge Green issued an initial R&R denying relief, the court remanded to consider due process claims, and Judge Green issued a second R&R recommending partial grant.
- The district court, on de novo review of Respondent’s objection, agreed prolonged detention violated due process and ordered an individualized bond hearing before an IJ within 14 days.
- The court declined to prescribe a specific burden or quantum of proof for the IJ to apply at that bond hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jalloh) | Defendant's Argument (Garland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jennings v. Rodriguez bars constitutional review of prolonged mandatory detention under §1226(c) | Jennings did not resolve the constitutional question; due process review remains available | Jennings interpreted §1226(c) as mandating detention and did not require periodic bond hearings, so §1226(c) forecloses the inquiry | Court: Jennings did not decide the constitutional issue; due process claim may proceed |
| Whether Jalloh’s detention is unconstitutionally prolonged under the six-factor test | Detention (~19 months) and projected further delay favor finding unconstitutional prolonged detention and entitlement to an individualized bond hearing | Government contends the six-factor test is inappropriate or that factors do not favor release | Court: Applying the six-factor test, factors weigh for Jalloh; ordered individualized bond hearing |
| Whether the court should set the burden/quantum of proof for the IJ at the bond hearing | Jalloh sought a hearing with government bearing clear-and-convincing burden to justify continued detention | Garland argued the court should not dictate burden/quantum to IJ | Court: Declined to mandate a specific burden; left burden/standard for IJ to determine in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Muse v. Sessions, 409 F. Supp. 3d 707 (D. Minn. 2018) (recognizing mandatory §1226(c) detention but applying multi-factor test for unconstitutional prolonged detention)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (statutory interpretation holding §1226(c) does not itself require periodic bond hearings; declined to decide constitutional question)
- Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining Jennings avoided the constitutional question about prolonged mandatory detention)
- Bolus A. D. v. Sec’y of Homeland Sec., 376 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D. Minn. 2019) (declining to prospectively set the burden of proof for IJ bond hearings)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings entitled to liberal construction)