Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible
882 F.3d 826
9th Cir.2017Background
- Padilla-Ramirez unlawfully entered the U.S. in 1999, was removed to El Salvador in 2010, and later reentered illegally; ICE reinstated his prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
- Following reinstatement, Padilla-Ramirez expressed fear of return and an asylum officer found a reasonable fear, referring him to withholding-only proceedings before an immigration judge (IJ).
- While withholding-only proceedings are pending, Padilla-Ramirez requested an IJ bond hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1); the IJ denied it for lack of jurisdiction.
- He filed a habeas petition; the district court denied relief, concluding he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), which does not authorize the initial bond hearing available under § 1226(a).
- The Ninth Circuit reviews the denial de novo and must decide whether detention is authorized by § 1226(a) (discretionary detention pending removal decision; bond hearings) or § 1231(a) (detention during removal period for administratively final removal orders).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute governs detention of an alien subject to a reinstated removal order during withholding-only proceedings? | Padilla-Ramirez: § 1226(a) governs, so he is entitled to an initial bond hearing. | Government: § 1231(a) governs because the reinstated removal order is administratively final. | Held: § 1231(a) governs; no initial bond hearing under § 1226(a). |
| Is a reinstated removal order administratively final for detention purposes while withholding-only proceedings are pending? | Padilla-Ramirez: Not final during withholding-only proceedings. | Government: Reinstated order is administratively final; § 1231(a)(5) bars reopening/review. | Held: Reinstated removal orders are administratively final for detention purposes despite withholding-only proceedings. |
| Do withholding-only proceedings constitute a pending decision "on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States" under § 1226(a)? | Padilla-Ramirez: Yes — proceedings affect removability, so § 1226(a) applies. | Government: No — withholding-only proceedings only decide whether removal may be to a particular country, not whether removal from the U.S. is appropriate. | Held: Withholding-only proceedings concern country-specific removability and do not render § 1226(a) applicable. |
| Do prior Ninth Circuit decisions (Ortiz-Alfaro, Ayala) or Second Circuit precedent (Guerra) control this question? | Padilla-Ramirez: Ortiz-Alfaro/Ayala suggest reinstated orders are not final while withholding proceedings pending; support for his view. | Government: Those cases concerned finality for judicial-review purposes and constitutional-avoidance; they do not control detention analysis. | Held: Ortiz-Alfaro and Ayala are distinguishable (judicial-review context); the court declines to follow Guerra and affirms § 1231(a) applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (section 1231(a) detention ends when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable; supervision remains).
- Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (procedural safeguards for prolonged § 1231(a)(6) detention align with § 1226(a) protections).
- Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012) (reinstated removal orders not final for judicial-review purposes while withholding-only proceedings pending; decided under constitutional-avoidance).
- Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017) (administrative-finality questions resolved to preserve judicial review; distinguished from detention context).
- Guerra v. Shanahan, 831 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2016) (held reinstated-order detainees are governed by § 1226(a) during withholding-only proceedings; Ninth Circuit respectfully rejects this view).
- Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, 727 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2013) (§ 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves limited jurisdiction for certain constitutional or legal claims despite § 1231(a)(5) bar).