Leonardo v. Crawford
646 F.3d 1157
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Leonardo filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging prolonged immigration detention.
- Casas-Castrillon and Prieto-Romero decisions held detainees under § 1226(a) are entitled to an IJ bond hearing pending removal proceedings.
- The district court ordered a Casas-Castrillon bond hearing for Leonardo; the IJ denied bond, finding him a danger to the community.
- Leonardo did not appeal the IJ bond ruling to the BIA before pursuing habeas relief in district court.
- The district court initially dismissed the petition, citing § 1226(e) and concluding exhaustion was not required because the court could review the bond decision.
- The court later remanded, remanding for dismissal without prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review bond decision | Leonardo seeks habeas review of the bond ruling. | District court lacked habeas jurisdiction over bond determinations under §1226(e). | Habeas jurisdiction exists; review for constitutional/legal claims is proper. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Exhaustion was accomplished via district-court habeas review. | Exhaustion required appeal to the BIA before habeas review. | Petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. |
| Proper route after exhaustion failure | Petition should proceed in district court notwithstanding exhaustion issues. | Remand for dismissal without prejudice is appropriate until exhaustion occurs. | Remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice; may refile after exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) (entitles detainees to a bond hearing before an IJ pending removal proceedings)
- Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (allows administrative review of bond determinations)
- V. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (habeas review may address constitutional claims and legal error)
- Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2003) (must exhaust administrative remedies before habeas review when BIA review is available)
- Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. CHG Int'l, Inc., 811 F.2d 1209 (9th Cir. 1987) (discusses exhaustion and staying actions pending exhaustion)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (identifies broad circumstances where exhaustion may be excused)
- Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2007) (outlines factors for excusing prudential exhaustion)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2001) (superseded discussions on administrative exhaustion grounds)