188 F. Supp. 3d 328
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Petitioner Alexis Perez, a Dominican national and lawful permanent resident since 1999, re-entered the U.S. in December 2012 and was paroled at JFK but denied admission.
- Perez has prior New York convictions (original 2001 drug conviction later vacated and replaced by a 2014 conviction; petit larceny remained) and DHS charged him as an inadmissible arriving alien.
- DHS detained Perez under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) during removal proceedings; DHS denied his request for parole/bond.
- Immigration Judge ordered Perez removed; the BIA dismissed his appeal on May 11, 2016 (Perez retained right to seek judicial review in the Second Circuit).
- Perez filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking an individualized bond hearing, arguing § 1225(b) does not permit indefinite detention and relying on Lora v. Shanahan.
- The District Court denied the petition, holding § 1225(b) authorizes detention during removal proceedings and Perez’s due process rights were not violated given procedural posture and delays largely resulting from his appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Perez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1225(b) permits continued detention of an inadmissible arriving LPR without a bond hearing | § 1225(b) should be read like Lora (limiting detention) and therefore requires a bond hearing after a time limit | § 1225(b) authorizes detention of inadmissible arriving aliens during removal proceedings; no implied time limit or bond right | Court: § 1225(b) authorizes detention through removal proceedings; no bond hearing required here |
| Whether Perez’s prolonged detention violated substantive due process | Prolonged detention without individualized determination is arbitrary/unreasonable | Detention not arbitrary; delays are attributable largely to Perez’s appeals and procedural posture | Court: No due process violation; detention not unreasonable under circumstances |
| Whether the § 1231(a) removal-period regime already governs (making § 1225(b) inapplicable) | (Implicit) Perez’s appeal dismissal could shift authority to § 1231(a) | Government argued the BIA dismissal may shift authority to § 1231(a), but removal period may not have begun due to possible judicial review/stay | Court: Unclear whether removal period began; court therefore analyzed § 1225(b) and denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Lora v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2015) (construed § 1226(c) to limit mandatory detention period and recognized entitlement to bond hearing after time)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (recognizes permissible immigration detention during removal proceedings but notes due process concerns for unreasonable detention)
- Doherty v. Thornburgh, 943 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1991) (petitioner's appeals cannot be used to claim prolonged detention violates due process)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1982) (LPR has procedural due process protections in exclusion proceedings after brief trip abroad)
- Ferreras v. Ashcroft, 160 F. Supp. 2d 617 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (held LPR lawfully detained under § 1225(b) during removal proceedings)