258 F. Supp. 3d 372
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Petitioner Danilo Alexander Pineda, a Salvadoran brought to the U.S. as a child, has an extensive criminal history and a pending U-visa application; ICE detained him as an inadmissible criminal alien in January 2014.
- Pineda received a Lora hearing within six months (Nov. 2015); the IJ found the government proved dangerousness and continued detention.
- Pineda sought a second Lora-style bond hearing in 2016 arguing Lora requires periodic six‑month reviews; the IJ denied a second hearing and the BIA later rendered his removal order administratively final.
- Pineda filed habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a second periodic bond hearing; the Second Circuit later stayed his removal, confirming detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
- The district court considered whether (1) Lora requires periodic six‑month bond hearings after the initial six months and (2) due process independently requires periodic review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lora requires automatic periodic bond hearings every six months | Lora’s reference to a "period of detention" and adoption of Rodriguez reasoning means periodic six‑month reviews are required | Lora addressed only an initial six‑month limit and did not mandate recurring automatic hearings | Court: Lora does not require automatic six‑month bond hearings after the initial required hearing |
| Whether Zadvydas/constitutional due process requires automatic six‑month bond hearings | Zadvydas requires ongoing re‑evaluations every six months once detention reaches six months | Government: Zadvydas imposes a burden on detainee to show no significant likelihood of removal; it does not shift a continuing burden to the government to provide automatic hearings | Court: Zadvydas allows periodic review but places initial burden on detainee to show lack of foreseeable removal; it does not mandate automatic government‑initiated six‑month hearings |
| Whether detainees held under §1226(c) must get bond redetermination absent changed circumstances | Pineda: constitutional concerns require routine redeterminations even without a showing of changed circumstances | Respondents: existing regulatory procedures (bond redetermination upon showing changed circumstances) satisfy due process | Court: Bond redetermination procedures upon a showing of materially changed circumstances satisfy due process in this context |
| Whether petitioner made the required showing to obtain another bond hearing | Pineda: circumstances (time detained, treatment, U‑visa) justify a new hearing | Government: no materially changed circumstances or sufficient showing under applicable standards | Court: Pineda did not make the required showing; petition for habeas denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lora v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2015) (held §1226(c) detainee must receive a bail hearing within six months; government must prove danger or flight by clear and convincing evidence)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (post‑removal detention indefinite beyond reasonably foreseeable future raises constitutional concerns; six‑month presumptive period and burden on detainee to show lack of foreseeable removal)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upheld mandatory detention during removal proceedings for certain criminal aliens)
- Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (applied a six‑month limit and required a bond hearing; discussed standards for prolonged detention)
- Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015) (addressed whether periodic six‑month hearings are required; court held periodic review necessary under certain constitutional principles)
- Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussed constitutional implications of prolonged civil immigration detention and need for review)
- Casas‑Castrillón v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) (explained interplay between mandatory and discretionary detention regimes)