980 F.3d 551
6th Cir.2020Background
- Walter Melara Martinez, a Salvadoran national, was apprehended in 2017 while unlawfully reentering the U.S.; authorities reinstated a 2008 removal order.
- Melara claims he will be tortured or killed by MS‑13 if returned and sought protection under the Convention Against Torture and withholding of removal; an IJ denied relief twice.
- Melara has pursued multiple appeals, motions to reopen/reconsider, habeas relief, and petitions in this court, resulting in roughly 34 months of detention while proceedings continued.
- The underlying panel in Martinez v. LaRose held Melara’s prolonged detention did not violate due process and denied his request for a bond hearing.
- The court received a petition for rehearing en banc; a majority did not vote to rehear, so the petition was denied. Judge Thapar concurred in the denial; Judge Moore dissented from the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether constitutional due process protects inadmissible aliens stopped at the border from prolonged detention | Melara: Zadvydas and Clark extend due‑process reasonableness limits to inadmissible aliens; his prolonged detention is unreasonable | Government/Thapar: Mezei and Thuraissigiam treat excluded aliens as outside due‑process protection; Congress provides the process | Rehearing denied; concurrence reasons Mezei/Thuraissigiam control and no constitutional right to release or bond hearing for excluded aliens |
| Whether Zadvydas reasonableness framework (six‑month presumptive period; court must order release if removal not reasonably foreseeable) applies to inadmissible aliens | Melara: Zadvydas/Clark/Rosales‑Garcia require courts to assess reasonableness and account for cumulative detention, including appeals | Government: Thuraissigiam and Mezei limit constitutional protections for those not admitted; statutory/process limits are for political branches | The panel’s posture rejects Melara’s Zadvydas‑based claim; concurrence argues Rosales‑Garcia is no longer good law; dissent urges en banc review to preserve Zadvydas protections |
| Whether time spent pursuing appeals/petitions may be counted against the Government in assessing reasonableness of detention | Melara: Prior detention and ongoing appeals create good reason to believe removal is not reasonably foreseeable; courts must ‘‘shrink’’ foreseeable future as detention grows (Zadvydas, Ly) | Government: For excluded aliens, the political branches’ statutory design governs; continued detention tied to removal proceedings is permissible | Panel denied relief; dissent contends Sixth Circuit precedent (Ly) and Zadvydas require counting appeals time and that prolonged detention here is unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (establishes subsidiarity of detention and reasonableness test under §1231(a)(6))
- Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (excluded aliens treated as stopped at border and afforded process Congress provides)
- Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020) (reaffirmed Mezei distinction between admitted and excluded aliens for due process)
- Rosales‑Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (applied Zadvydas reasonableness limit to inadmissible aliens)
- Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (applied Zadvydas statutory construction to certain inadmissible aliens)
- Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2003) (holds appeals and petitions for relief ordinarily cannot be used to justify indefinite detention)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (declined to resolve certain constitutional questions about detention periods)