Raul Padilla-Ramirez v. Daniel Bible
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056
9th Cir.2017Background
- Padilla-Ramirez unlawfully entered the U.S. in 1999, was ordered removed in 2009, and was removed to El Salvador in 2010.
- He reentered illegally; ICE reinstated his prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) in 2015–2016 and detained him while state charges were resolved.
- Padilla-Ramirez expressed fear of return and an asylum officer found a reasonable fear, triggering withholding-only proceedings before an IJ (no reopening of the reinstated removal order is permitted under § 1231(a)(5)).
- He requested an IJ bond hearing under the procedures for detainees held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); the IJ denied jurisdiction, the district court denied habeas relief, and he appealed.
- Central legal question: is he detained under § 1226(a) (which authorizes bond hearings) or § 1231(a) (which governs detention during the removal period and generally does not authorize that bond process) while withholding-only proceedings are pending?
Issues
| Issue | Padilla-Ramirez's Argument | Bible (Gov’t) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statutory provision governs initial detention of an alien with a reinstated removal order during withholding-only proceedings? | Detention is under § 1226(a); bond hearing available because the decision whether he "is to be removed" is still pending. | Detention is under § 1231(a); reinstated removal orders are administratively final and governed by § 1231(a). | § 1231(a) governs; reinstated orders are administratively final for detention purposes, so the § 1226(a) bond process does not apply. |
| Do Ortiz-Alfaro/Ayala preclude treating a reinstated removal order as final for detention purposes while withholding-only proceedings continue? | Ortiz-Alfaro/Ayala show reinstated orders are not final for judicial-review timing and thus foreclose treating them as final for detention. | Those cases addressed finality for judicial review and relied on constitutional-avoidance concerns; they do not control the separate question of detention authority. | Ortiz-Alfaro/Ayala do not control here; finality for detention is determined differently and constitutional concerns that drove those decisions are absent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (procedural safeguards for prolonged detention under § 1231(a)(6) and § 1226(a))
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (§ 1231(a) detention ends when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable)
- 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)
- Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017) (administrative proceedings conclude when Board action made clear; preserves access to judicial review)
- Guerra v. Shanahan, 831 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2016) (contrary holding: reinstated-order detainees are detained under § 1226(a) during withholding-only proceedings)