Edison Bladimir Hidalgo Anazco v. Juan Baltazar, Warden, GEO Group, Inc., George Valdez, Director of Denver Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, Acting Director Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markwayne Mullin, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied without prejudice Edison Bladimir Hidalgo Anazco’s habeas petition and related requests for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging his immigration detention and re-detention after termination from an Alternative to Detention program. The court held that his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rejected his due process, statutory, unreasonable-seizure, and Administrative Procedure Act claims, and found that he had not established entitlement to release.

Holdings

1. Section 1231 did not govern petitioner's detention because his removal order was not administratively final while his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending.
2. Petitioner's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225, because he was detained while already residing in the United States, had previously been released into an alternative-to-detention program, and was later re-detained.
3. Petitioner failed to establish a Fifth Amendment due process violation because he did not show that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and he did not adequately explain how the process used to terminate his alternative-to-detention status violated due process.
4. The court lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's challenge to the discretionary decision to terminate his alternative-to-detention participation and re-detain him.
5. Petitioner failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation, and his challenge to prolonged detention was properly analyzed under the Fifth Amendment rather than the Fourth Amendment.
6. The Administrative Procedure Act did not provide an independent basis for relief, and petitioner was not entitled to relief under the APA after failing to establish his underlying constitutional and statutory claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner's detention was governed by the post-removal-order detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231, or by the pre-removal detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226.
2. Whether petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or § 1226(a).
3. Whether petitioner established a Fifth Amendment due process violation based on the duration and asserted lack of foreseeability of his removal or on the process used to terminate his alternative-to-detention status.
4. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision to terminate petitioner's alternative-to-detention participation and re-detain him.
5. Whether petitioner's re-detention violated the Fourth Amendment.
6. Whether petitioner was entitled to relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Disposition

dismissed