Ninth Circuit Reverses Habeas Grant to Immigration Detainee

The Ninth Circuit has reversed a habeas grant to a detainee in immigration custody because the detainee failed to name his immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where he was detained, as the respondent to his petition. The detainee had named the ICE Field Office Director, rather than the warden at Golden State Annex, as the respondent. In addition, because the Golden State Annex is physically located in the Eastern District of California, that was the proper district for filing habeas, not the Northern District, where the ICE Field Office is located.

The full text of Doe v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/29/23-15361.pdf

Fourth Circuit Denies As Applied Challenge to Detention Scheme

The Fourth Circuit has affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a non-citizen subject to on-going withholding-only proceedings, finding that his removal was still reasonably foreseeable, despite the length of his detention. The court also found that due process did not require the immigration court to provide him with another bond hearing.

The full text of Vasquez Castaneda v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/227365.P.pdf

Eleventh Circuit Adjudicates Habeas

The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a petitioner who is on an order of supervision, subject to an unexecuted deportation order, and facing threatened deportation is “in custody” for the purpose of a habeas statute. The court also concluded that a petitioner who departed the United State prior to the issuance of a deportation order did not execute the order, and upon return to the United States, is subject to the execution of the order.

The full text of Argueta Romero v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012487.pdf

Eleventh Circuit Finds that MN Convictions are Removable Convictions

The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a Minnesota possession of a controlled substance conviction is divisible with respect to the identity of the substance, and that a Minnesota second-degree assault conviction is a crime of violence because it requires either the intentional use of violent force or the inducement of fear of immediate bodily harm. The court also determined that the detention of a detainee who obtains a stay of removal from the federal court is governed by 8 USC 1226, not 8 USC 1231.

The full text of Farah v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912462.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds EAJA Fees not Available in Habeas Actions

The Fourth Circuit has determined that EAJA fees are not available in habeas actions challenging civil detention because such proceedings are not truly civil actions.

The full text of Obando-Segura can be found here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/197736.P.pdf

Eleventh Circuit Dismisses Habeas Petitions Brought by Provisional Waiver Seekers

The Eleventh Circuit has found there is no habeas jurisdiction to prevent the removal of applicants for provisional waivers of unlawful presence who are subject to final orders removal.

The full text of Camarena v. ICE can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913446.pdf

Third Circuit Dismisses Habeas Appeal for I-212/I-601A Applicant

The Third Circuit has determined that a District Court has no authority to stay a removal order while the applicant pursues a combination of I-212 and I-601A waivers and a motion to reopen. All of these claims must be brought through a petition for review of the removal order.

The full text of Tazu v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191715p.pdf

SCOTUS Scales Back Habeas

The Supreme Court has reversed Ninth Circuit precedent allowing the recipient of a negative credible fear determination to challenge that decision through a habeas petition in District Court. The Court noted that the relief sought was not release from unlawful restraint, which is the traditional relief granted by a habeas petition.

“This principle dooms respondent’s Suspension Clause argument, because neither respondent nor his amici have shown that the writ of habeas corpus was understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to permit a petitioner to claim the right to enter or remain in a country or to obtain administrative review potentially leading to that result. The writ simply provided a means of contesting the lawfulness of restraint and securing release.”

Perhaps even more alarming is the Court’s analysis of the petitioner’s due process rights. The petitioner physically entered the United States, and was apprehended about 25 yards from the border. Despite his entry, the Court determined that he no constitutional right to due process.

The full text of DHS v. Thuraissigiam can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-161_g314.pdf

Third Circuit Reaffirms Constitutional Right to a Prolonged Detention Bond Hearing

The Third Circuit has reaffirmed that a mandatory detainee under 236(c) can bring an as-applied constitutional challenge to prolonged detention. A district court hearing a habeas claim in these circumstances should consider four factors: 1) the length of detention; 2) whether detention is likely to continue; 3) the reasons for delay; and 4) whether the conditions of confinement are meaningfully different from criminal detention. Once a bond hearing is ordered in a prolonged detention setting, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community.

The full text of German Santos v. Warden Pike County Correctional Facility can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/192663p.pdf

Eleventh Circuit Remands Habeas Petition

The Eleventh Circuit has remanded a habeas petition to determine if the petitioner acted in bad faith by refusing to complete an application for a travel document, or whether he returned the incomplete application simply because he did not know the remaining information. The court emphasized that the District Court cannot resolve this conflict on affidavits alone.

The full text of Singh v. Attorney General can be found here:
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201812915.pdf

CA Court of Appeals Addresses IAC Regarding Immigration Consequences

The California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, has determined that a counsel who failed to advise her client before she entered her guilty plea that her plea would subject her to mandatory deportation has rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. An executed Tahl waiver form, advising the defendant she will be deported, does not substitute for the specific and correct advice of counsel regarding clear immigration consequences.

Moreover, where the record contains objective evidence (such as family ties, long-time lawful permanent residence, and an employment history in the United States) that the defendant would not have entered her guilty plea had she been so advised, prejudice is established. A defendant’s willingness to spend months in immigration detention fighting a case is further proof of her unwillingness to agree to a plea that would make her automatically deportable.

The full text of In re Reyna Perez Hernandez can be found here:

http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0319//G054623

Third Circuit Finds Jurisdiction to Review Expedited Removal Orders

The Third Circuit has determined that the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the INA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as applied to Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) designees seeking judicial review of orders of expedited removal.  "Because SIJ status reflects Petitioners’ significant ties to this country and Congress’s determination that such aliens should be accorded important statutory and procedural protections, Petitioners are entitled to invoke the Suspension Clause and petition the federal courts for a writ of habeas corpus. We further conclude that because the expedited removal regime does not provide an adequate substitute process, the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions effect an unconstitutional suspension of the writ as applied to Petitioners."

The court recognized that SIJ designees enjoy certain statutory rights.  "Yet revocation of these statutory rights without cause, notice, or judicial review is precisely the consequence of expedited removal. Despite their SIJ classification, the children, once removed, would be unable to adjust status because doing so requires physical presence within the United States, and further, they would be barred from reentry for at least five years. Moreover, Petitioners’ expedited removal would be based on a ground for inadmissibility—lack of valid immigration documentation—from which Petitioners are expressly exempted by virtue of their SIJ status. In short, expedited removal would render SIJ status a nullity."

The full text of Osorio-Martinez v. Attorney General can be found here:

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172159p.pdf

Fourth Circuit Denies Habeas Filed by the Mother of an Unaccompanied Minor

Dora Beltran filed a habeas as the next friend of her minor son, RMB.  RMB was granted VAWA deferred action based on his mother's abusive marriage.  RMB had a trouble adolescence, including criminal activity and gang affiliations.  When he was 14 years old, he ran away from home, and began working as a smuggler, assisting with the illegal entry of immigrants.  He was detained by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and despite his mother informing CBP that he had been granted deferred action, CBP classified RMB as an unaccompanied minor and placed him in a juvenile detention facility.  When his mother requested that he be released into her custody, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) refused, finding her incapable of properly supervising and caring for RMB.

The Fourth Circuit found that RMB was properly classified as an unaccompanied minor because even though his mother was in the United States, she was not "available to provide care and physical custody.”  In addition, the court found it permissible for ORR to continue detaining RMB after an immigration judge terminated his removal proceedings because ORR could not locate a suitable guardian for him.  The court determined that RMB's continued detention did not unconstitutionally interfere with his mother's right to control his upbringing, but expressed concern that RMB may not have been given a meaningful opportunity to challenge his continued detention, and thus, his procedural due process rights may have been impinged upon.  Thus, the court remanded the case to the District Court to determine, in the first instance, if RMB was entitled to additional process.

The full text of D.B. v. Cardall can be found here:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151993.P.pdf