358 F. Supp. 3d 853
D. Minn.2019Background
- Petitioner Jamal A., a Somali national and former LPR, was detained on reentry June 6, 2017 after a prior wire-fraud conviction and alleged flight to Canada; ICE placed him in removal proceedings as an "arriving alien" under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Jamal has been in ICE custody for over 19 months at the time of the decision and is held at a county jail with conditions resembling penal confinement.
- An IJ granted Jamal CAT deferral in November 2017 based on clan affiliation; the BIA reversed in June 2018 but remanded for consideration of other bases for relief; further administrative and judicial review remain possible.
- Jamal filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 raising statutory, Fourth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment (Due Process) claims; the magistrate recommended denial, Jamal objected, and the district court reviewed de novo.
- The court dismissed the statutory and Fourth Amendment claims but found continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Due Process Clause and ordered an IJ bond hearing by February 22, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) permits prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing | Jamal: § 1225(b)(2)(A) should be read to include a reasonableness limitation (constitutional avoidance) so prolonged detention without bond is unlawful | Government: § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention for arriving aliens not "clearly and beyond a doubt" entitled to admission; Jennings forecloses reading a reasonableness limit into the statute | Court rejected avoidance argument as to statutory interpretation but found Due Process requires bond process when detention becomes unreasonable; ordered IJ bond hearing |
| Whether arriving aliens under § 1225(b)(2)(A) receive lesser due-process protection than aliens detained under § 1226(c) | Jamal: arriving aliens should receive the same due-process protections as other detained aliens | Government: arriving-alien "entry fiction" means they are treated as outside the U.S. and thus entitled to lesser constitutional protections | Court agreed arriving aliens may be entitled to lesser protection in theory but applied the same practical due-process factors and found detention here unconstitutional without a bond hearing |
| Whether Jamal's continued detention violated the Due Process Clause and what relief is appropriate | Jamal: 19+ months, punitive jail conditions, backlog and likely appeals make detention unreasonable; seeks release or bond hearing | Government: detention was mandated under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because Jamal is an arriving alien with a disqualifying criminal history | Court held continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated Due Process; granted habeas relief in part and ordered an IJ bond hearing to assess danger/flight risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (distinguishes constitutional safeguards available inside U.S. from those unavailable to aliens treated as outside U.S.)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (U.S. 2018) (statutory detention mandate under § 1225(b)(2) construed to require detention of certain arriving aliens)
- Ibragimov v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2007) (explains that arriving aliens physically present in U.S. remain constructively detained at the border while status is resolved)
- Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2003) (courts should be sensitive to dilatory tactics by detainees when assessing reasonableness of continued detention)
- East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 909 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2018) (discusses substantial immigration-court backlog affecting timing of removal proceedings)