United States v. Ilma Soriano Nunez
928 F.3d 240
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Ilma Alexandra Soriano Nunez was federally indicted for passport fraud, false claim of U.S. citizenship, use of a false SSN, and producing a driver’s license not issued for her use.
- After initial temporary detention under the Bail Reform Act (BRA) §3142(d) and an ICE detainer, a magistrate denied the government’s motion for pretrial detention and set conditions for her release under the BRA.
- ICE later executed the detainer and took Soriano Nunez into custody for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §1226(a)(1).
- While in ICE custody, Soriano Nunez moved to dismiss the indictment or to enforce the BRA release order to secure her release from ICE detention.
- The district court denied dismissal and declined to extend the BRA release order to bar ICE’s detention, holding the INA detention authority did not conflict with the BRA.
- Soriano Nunez appealed; the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal as to indictment dismissal for lack of jurisdiction but reviewed (plenary) the BRA/enforcement issue and affirmed the district court’s bail ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a BRA release order precludes ICE detention under the INA | Soriano Nunez: BRA is the sole means to release/detain a criminal defendant; release under BRA forbids ICE from detaining her | Government: INA independently authorizes ICE detention pending removal; BRA does not displace INA authority | Court: BRA and INA coexist; BRA release does not bar ICE detention under INA |
| Whether the district court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment is appealable now | Soriano Nunez: dismissal required because ICE detention conflicts with BRA | Government: denial of dismissal is not a final appealable order | Court: No jurisdiction over denial of dismissal; appeal dismissed in part |
| Whether §3142(d)’s ten-day temporary detention compels ICE to choose custody or forfeit enforcement | Soriano Nunez: §3142(d) gives Government a choice; if ICE takes custody, BRA should control outcome | Government: §3142(d) merely notifies other authorities and allows them to act; it does not limit INA authority | Court: §3142(d) grants a window for other agencies to take custody but does not override INA or oblige agencies to forgo removal detention |
| Whether criminal and immigration detention regimes conflict such that courts can force the Executive to choose which law to enforce | Soriano Nunez: statutes conflict; courts should compel choice in favor of BRA | Government: statutes serve distinct purposes; courts cannot force Executive to pick statutes to enforce | Court: No textual conflict; statutes serve different purposes and can coexist; courts may not pick and choose among statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 855 F.3d 526 (3d Cir.) (final judgment in criminal cases defined as sentence)
- Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (1937) (sentence as the judgment)
- United States v. Perry, 788 F.2d 100 (3d Cir.) (standard of plenary review for BRA enforcement appeals)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (purpose of BRA to govern pretrial release)
- United States v. Vasquez-Benitez, 919 F.3d 546 (D.C. Cir.) (BRA and INA serve separate functions and can coexist)
- United States v. Veloz-Alonso, 910 F.3d 266 (6th Cir.) (BRA does not prevent other agencies from performing lawful duties)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (recognition of INA detention authority)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (courts should regard coexisting statutes as effective absent clear congressional intent to the contrary)