Michalski v. Decker
1:17-cv-09631
| S.D.N.Y. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Michalski, arrested by ICE on Oct. 31, 2017 as an alleged visa overstayer, has been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at Bergen County Jail and requested an immigration hearing and review of custody.
- At a Dec. 7, 2017 Master Calendar Hearing, ICE initially declined to present removability evidence; a contested removability and bond hearing was scheduled for Jan. 5, 2018.
- Michalski filed a habeas petition seeking immediate release or a prompt neutral probable-cause determination, contending his continued detention without such a hearing violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
- Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (invoking 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and 1252(g)) and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; they also argued Michalski’s constitutional claims lack merit.
- The Court held it has jurisdiction to hear a habeas challenge to pre-removal detention not tied to a removal order, declined to find § 1252 or §1252(g) divested jurisdiction, but exercised discretion to require exhaustion because a bond hearing was imminent and might afford the requested relief.
- The petition was denied without prejudice; Michalski may renew habeas review if detention continues after the bond hearing and administrative appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has jurisdiction over habeas challenge to pre-removal detention | Michalski: habeas jurisdiction exists to review constitutionality of arrest/detention absent a removal order | Respondents: § 1252(b)(9) (REAL ID) and § 1252(g) channel or strip district-court habeas jurisdiction to courts of appeals | Court: § 1252(b)(9) and §1252(g) do not bar habeas when challenge is to detention independent of a removal order; district court retains jurisdiction |
| Whether prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies bars relief | Michalski: exhaustion should be excused because BIA cannot address constitutional claims and irreparable injury from detention exists | Respondents: Michalski must exhaust immigration-court remedies (bond hearing, BIA) before federal habeas | Court: exercised discretion to require exhaustion because a bond hearing was pending that could moot/resolve the claim; denied petition without prejudice |
| Whether § 1226(a) detention requires a prompt neutral probable-cause hearing (Fourth Amendment claim) | Michalski: arrest/detention without prompt neutral probable-cause determination violates Fourth (and Fifth) Amendment | Respondents: no such constitutional requirement for discretionary immigration detention under § 1226(a) | Court: did not reach the merits; acknowledged the constitutional question but declined to decide given pending administrative relief |
| Whether § 1252(b)(2) or §1226(e) preclude constitutional review | Michalski: constitutional claims are reviewable despite statutory limitations | Respondents: statutory limits on review of discretionary immigration decisions bar relief | Court: statutory carve-outs do not bar constitutional claims; officials lack discretion to violate the Constitution, so claims remain cognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 232 F.3d 328 (2d Cir.) (explaining § 1252(b)(9) channels review but preserved habeas for non-removal-order claims)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (U.S.) (narrow reading of § 1252(g) and limits on judicial review of immigration actions)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S.) (on habeas review of immigration-related claims prior to REAL ID changes)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (discussing REAL ID Act’s effect on habeas review)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S.) (on limits of detention-related challenges and judicial review)
- Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52 (2d Cir.) (district court jurisdiction appropriate for challenges to arrest/detention independent of removal orders)
- Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51 (2d Cir.) (factors for excusing administrative exhaustion)
- Lora v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir.) (due process concerns in immigration detention; six-month bail-hearing rule)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (U.S.) (clarifying that pretrial detention claims unsupported by probable cause fall under the Fourth Amendment)