Louisaire v. Muller
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129193
| S.D.N.Y. | 2010Background
- Louisaire is a Haitian citizen and lawful permanent resident of the U.S. since 1977, in removal proceedings since December 5, 2006 based on a cocaine offense (New York Seventh Degree).
- The 2004 conviction for Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree is the basis for his alleged deportability as a drug offender.
- ICE detained Louisaire starting December 5, 2006 and held him in mandatory detention under INA § 236(c) for a substantial period, with a conditional release in January 2008 only temporarily altering custody status.
- BIA initially sustained ICE’s challenge to discretionary relief, and Louisaire was ordered removed to Haiti in February 2008; the Second Circuit ultimately dismissed his untimely petition for review in January 2010.
- In December 2009 the BIA remanded to IJ for updated investigations following a different interpretation in light of Alsol v. Mukasey, and Louisaire filed this habeas petition in October 2010.
- The petition challenges mandatory detention under INA § 236(c), seeking release or an individualized bond determination; the court granted the writ, ordering an individualized bond hearing within 10 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 236(c) applies to Louisaire. | Louisaire contends there is no nexus to an enumerated offense since his latest conviction is not an enumerated deportability ground. | Respondents argue the statute applies upon release from custody for any enumerated offense and/or based on prior detentions. | §236(c) does not apply here; release connection to enumerated offenses is required. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required. | Exhaustion is futile; the BIA has predetermined the issue and no new facts would change the outcome. | Exhaustion is ordinarily required, but the court may excuse in deference to efficiency. | No exhaustion required; court may hear the petition due to pre-determined outcome and lack of new facts. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the detention statute under 2241. | Demore v. Kim supports review of the statutory framework, not discretion. | INA §1226(e) bars review of discretionary judgments, but not challenges to statutory framework. | Court has jurisdiction to review the statutory interpretation of §236(c). |
| Whether due process challenges render §236(c) unconstitutional. | Detention without bond violates due process given lack of final order and potential relief. | Detention is constitutionally justified under the statute pending removal. | Reached as alternative; court found statutory construction dispositive and did not reach due process merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (challenge to detention framework is reviewable under 2241)
- Garcia v. Shanahan, 615 F. Supp. 2d 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (statutory interpretation of 1226(c) and timing is key)
- Saysana v. Gillen, 590 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2009) (discusses timing of release under 236(c))
- Monestime v. Reilly, 704 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (courts may excuse exhaustion where outcome is foregone)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (statutory framework for detention pending removal)
- Garcia v. Shanahan, 615 F. Supp. 2d 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (nexus between release date and removable offense)
- United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1955) (statutory interpretation principle to give effect to every clause)