Cesar Daniel Rangel Ramirez v. Brian Henkey, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada grants Cesar Daniel Rangel Ramirez’s habeas petition challenging his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court holds that he is subject to detention under § 1226(a), and that continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violates procedural and substantive due process. Respondents are ordered to provide a bond hearing by December 30, 2025, or immediately release him.

Holdings

1. The court may decide the habeas petition without a response where Respondents' repeated, inadequately justified delays would excessively delay resolution of a liberty-related habeas proceeding; the court granted relief without treating the failure to respond as an automatic entitlement to default judgment.
2. The court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Petitioner's challenge to the lawfulness of his immigration detention because the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not apply to that challenge.
3. Administrative exhaustion was excused as futile.
4. Petitioner was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A); the government's contrary interpretation and detention policy were unlawful as applied to him.
5. Detaining Petitioner without an opportunity for release on bond violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
6. Petitioner's continued immigration detention without an individualized special or compelling justification violated substantive due process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had habeas jurisdiction to review Petitioner's immigration detention notwithstanding the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions.
2. Whether Respondents' failure to timely respond and repeated requests for extensions warranted deciding the habeas petition without a response.
3. Whether Petitioner was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), based on his entry and later arrest away from a port of entry.
4. Whether detention without an opportunity for an individualized bond hearing violated Petitioner's procedural and substantive due process rights.
5. What relief was appropriate to remedy the unlawful detention.

Disposition

granted