United States v. Ailon-Ailon
875 F.3d 1334
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mario Ailon-Ailon, a Guatemalan national living in Kansas, was arrested by ICE in July 2017 for illegal reentry and charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; he is subject to a reinstated removal order and ICE lodged a detainer.
- The government moved for pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act, arguing Ailon-Ailon would be removed by ICE before trial (thus would "flee").
- A magistrate judge denied detention, finding involuntary removal by the government is not the kind of "flight" the statute addresses and ordered release on bond and conditions.
- The district court reversed, concluding ICE likely would remove Ailon-Ailon before trial and treating that removal as qualifying as "flight," and ordered detention.
- The Tenth Circuit granted expedited review and addressed whether "flee" in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) encompasses involuntary removal by ICE.
- The court reversed the district court, holding that "flee" requires volitional conduct and does not include involuntary government removal; remanded with instructions to set conditions for release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3142(f)(2)’s term "flee" includes involuntary removal by ICE | Ailon-Ailon: "Flee" implies volition; involuntary removal is not flight | Government: "Flee" should include removal by ICE to prevent loss of custody before trial | Held: "Flee" requires volitional conduct; involuntary removal by ICE is not "flee" |
| Whether the government met the § 3142(f) threshold to seek detention | Ailon-Ailon: Government failed threshold because risk was involuntary removal | Government: ICE would be required to remove under § 1231 and thus risk qualifies as flight | Held: Government failed the § 3142(f) threshold; detention motion fails at step one |
| Whether statutory structure supports treating removable aliens differently | Ailon-Ailon: Bail Reform Act contemplates individualized decisions and allows release of removable aliens | Government: Interpreting "flee" to include removal better reconciles ICE removal duties and prosecutions | Held: Structure and provisions (e.g., § 3142(d), (e)) support plain-text volitional reading; cannot let ICE detainer automatically override individualized Bail Reform Act process |
| Whether courts should resolve inter-Executive Branch coordination issues | Ailon-Ailon: Court should not resolve internal Executive Branch conflicts; liberty interests weigh against it | Government: Practical necessity favors treating ICE removal as flight to hold defendants for prosecution | Held: Courts should not resolve Executive Branch turf disputes; convenience does not justify expanding "flee" |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (pretrial detention is a carefully limited exception to liberty)
- United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2003) (government bears preponderance burden for flight risk; review standards)
- United States v. Santos-Flores, 794 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (suggests “flee” involves an element of volition)
- Homeland Stores, Inc. v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 17 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 1994) (statutory context and structure matter in interpretation)