Edin Eleazar Quinonez Orosco v. Todd Lyons, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Edin Eleazar Quinonez Orosco’s habeas petition challenging his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court held that he was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and ordered an individualized bond hearing by December 17, 2025, or release. The court also enjoined respondents from relying on mandatory detention or the automatic stay to continue his detention if bond was granted.

Holdings

1. The district 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.
2. Petitioner was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, not mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The government's contrary interpretation and detention policy were unlawful.
3. The proper relief was an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by December 17, 2025, with immediate release if the hearing was not timely provided or if bond was granted.
4. Respondents' motion to extend the deadline to respond to the order to show cause was properly granted nunc pro tunc.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Petitioner's challenge to his immigration detention.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) required mandatory detention without a bond hearing for a longtime United States resident apprehended within the country after entering without inspection.
3. Whether Petitioner was instead subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), requiring an individualized bond hearing.
4. What relief was appropriate to remedy Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing.
5. Whether Respondents had shown good cause for an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause.

Disposition

granted