Mitka v. ICE Field Office Director
2:19-cv-00193
W.D. Wash.Jun 27, 2019Background
- Petitioner Robert Mitka has been detained by ICE since May 1, 2018, and seeks release or a bond hearing via 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition.
- An immigration judge (IJ) found she lacked jurisdiction to release him on bond; the IJ also denied his asylum application and that denial is on appeal.
- Government scheduled an ICE custody review for July 7, 2019, which might consider release.
- Government moved to dismiss, arguing Mitka entered under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and thus is lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1187, the immigration court lacks bond-jurisdiction under Matter of A-W-, and the BIA’s A-W- decision merits Chevron deference.
- Mitka’s initial response did not address the Government’s statutory arguments and focused on an asserted due process violation from prolonged detention without a bond hearing.
- The court found the statutory question must be resolved before reaching the constitutional due-process claim and ordered supplemental briefing from both parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory basis for detention | Mitka did not brief statutory basis; argues prolonged detention violates due process | Government: Mitka entered under VWP; detention authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1187 | Court: Statutory question must be addressed first; ordered Mitka to file supplemental response on statutory basis |
| Jurisdiction for bond hearing | Mitka seeks bond hearing | Government: IJ lacks jurisdiction under Matter of A-W- | Court did not decide; directed supplemental briefing before addressing jurisdiction |
| Deference to BIA decision (Chevron) | Mitka did not contest Chevron in initial brief | Government: A-W- should receive Chevron deference | Court did not decide; permitted Government to file supplemental reply to address statutory/deference arguments |
| Due process challenge to detention | Mitka: >1 year detention without bond hearing violates due process | Government: statutory framework controls and precludes the claim as framed | Court: Declined to reach constitutional claim until statutory basis resolved; ordered supplemental filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Shannon v. U.S. Civil Serv. Comm., 621 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1980) (courts ordinarily decide statutory grounds before reaching constitutional questions)