Jarpa v. Mumford, 211 F. Supp. 3d 706

Background

Petitioner Ralph Chidi Jarpa, a Liberian national and lawful permanent resident, was detained by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) following a 2015 conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and transfer to ICE custody after serving a one-year sentence.
Jarpa filed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging continued mandatory detention without an individualized bond hearing after nearly 11 months in ICE custody.
An Immigration Judge granted Jarpa adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159 and declined to terminate his asylum-based status; the Government appealed that ruling, and Jarpa remained detained during the appeal.
The Government argued (1) Jarpa failed to exhaust administrative remedies and (2) § 1226(c) permits categorical detention without bond; it also contested proper respondents under the immediate-custodian rule.
The district court found exhaustion excused due to irreparable liberty interests and futility, held prolonged § 1226(c) detention raises due process concerns, and ordered an individualized bond hearing within 10 days.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required before habeas	Jarpa: exhaustion is not required because continued detention causes irreparable liberty harm and BIA cannot provide meaningful relief	Gov: ordinary exhaustion rule applies to § 2241 challenges	Court: exhaustion excused—irreparable harm and futility weigh against requiring exhaustion
Whether § 1226(c) authorizes indefinite mandatory detention without an individualized bond hearing	Jarpa: § 1226(c) cannot be read to permit prolonged, indefinite detention; due process requires a hearing once detention is unreasonable	Gov: Demore permits categorical detention; Jarpa’s detention not unreasonably long	Court: § 1226(c) must be read to include a temporal/reasonableness limit; prolonged detention here is unreasonable and violates due process
Standard and burden at the required bond hearing	Jarpa: burden should be on Government to justify continued detention	Gov: treat petitioner like § 1226(a) detainees; burden on alien	Court: Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Jarpa is a flight risk or danger to justify continued detention
Proper respondents under the habeas petition (immediate custodian rule)	Jarpa: DHS/AG officials with authority to effect release are proper respondents	Gov: only immediate warden is proper respondent per Padilla	Court: immediate-custodian rule does not bar naming DHS/AG; DHS Secretary and AG are proper respondents (warden also proper), so petition may proceed

Key Cases Cited

Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (upheld § 1226(c) in brief detention context but recognized limits and provided Justice Kennedy’s concurrence cautioning individualized review if detention becomes unreasonable)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (applied constitutional-avoidance to read temporal limits on post-removal detention and set six-month presumptive rule)
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (U.S. 2005) (applied Zadvydas’s six-month presumption uniformly to inadmissible aliens)
Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015) (construed § 1226(c) to contain a reasonableness/time limit and required bond hearings after prolonged detention)
Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (adopted case-by-case reasonableness test for § 1226(c) detention and required individualized inquiry when detention becomes unreasonable)
Lora v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2015) (adopted bright-line six-month rule requiring bond hearings for § 1226(c) detainees after six months)
Sopo v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 825 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2016) (construed § 1226(c) to include an implicit temporal limitation and set framework for bond hearings)
United States v. Comstock, 627 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2010) (upheld clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard for civil post-prison detention in analogous context and informed due-process burden analysis)