Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison
905 F.3d 208
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Guerrero-Sanchez, a Mexican national, had a 1998 removal order reinstated under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) after reentry and a criminal conviction; ICE detained him on completion of his prison term in May 2015.
- He filed a reasonable-fear claim and pursued withholding-only/CAT relief; the BIA was reversed and remanded by this Court, and his withholding proceedings remained pending for years.
- He was detained for 637 days without a bond hearing before a federal court ordered release on conditions after finding no flight risk or danger.
- The Government appealed only the statutory basis of detention: it argued § 1231(a) (post-removal) governs; Guerrero-Sanchez argued § 1226(a) (pre-removal) governs or, alternately, that § 1231(a)(6) implicitly requires a bond hearing after prolonged detention.
- The Third Circuit held § 1231(a) governs reinstated orders even when withholding-only proceedings are pending, but construed § 1231(a)(6) to require a bond hearing after prolonged detention (six months) to avoid serious due process concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which INA provision authorizes detention of an alien with a reinstated removal order pursuing withholding-only relief? | Guerrero-Sanchez: § 1226(a) applies, so he is statutorily entitled to a bond hearing. | Government: § 1231(a) governs reinstated orders; no statutory bond right under § 1231(a). | Held: § 1231(a) governs; reinstated orders are administratively final for detention purposes. |
| Does § 1231(a)(6) permit indefinite detention without a bond hearing? | Guerrero-Sanchez: Even under § 1231(a), due process requires a bond hearing after prolonged detention. | Government: Zadvydas limits § 1231(a)(6) to detention reasonably necessary for removal; no further implied hearing requirement. | Held: § 1231(a)(6) must be read to entitle detainees to a bond hearing after prolonged detention to avoid constitutional doubts. |
| When is detention under § 1231(a)(6) "prolonged" so as to trigger a bond hearing? | Guerrero-Sanchez: Long delays in withholding proceedings (years) make detention unreasonable. | Government: Removal may still be imminent; no fixed trigger. | Held: A rebuttable six‑month (180-day) threshold; if detention exceeds six months and removal is not imminent, a bond hearing is required. |
| Standard and forum for the bond hearing under § 1231(a)(6) | Guerrero-Sanchez: Neutral adjudication required; burden on Government. | Government: DHS administrative reviews suffice. | Held: Hearing before an IJ; government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detainee is a flight risk or danger. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (interpreting § 1231(a)(6) to permit detention only as long as reasonably necessary and emphasizing constitutional limits on indefinite post-removal detention)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (addressing detention provisions of the INA and related statutory interpretation principles)
- Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (construing § 1231(a)(6) to require bond hearings after prolonged detention)
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (due process requires a hearing when detention becomes unreasonable; government must justify continued confinement)
- Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, 882 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding reinstated orders are administratively final for detention purposes under § 1231)