Henzo Requelme De Pina Tavares v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations, Field Office Director et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied without prejudice Henzo Requelme De Pina Tavares's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that he had not exhausted available administrative remedies concerning his post-acquittal bond claim, that his prolonged-detention and adjustment-of-status due process claims lacked merit, and that his statutory claims under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231 and 1255 did not warrant relief.

Holdings

1. Tavares could not obtain habeas relief on his claim that his acquittal materially changed the bond circumstances because he did not allege that he requested and was denied a new bond hearing after the acquittal, and he did not show that pursuing that administrative remedy would be futile.
2. Tavares was not entitled to relief based on the alleged prolongation of his detention because the remedy for constitutionally prolonged detention is a bond hearing, he had already received a bond hearing, and he did not allege that the immigration judge failed to apply the required burden of proof.
3. Tavares's due-process claim based on his pursuit of adjustment of status failed because adjustment of status is discretionary and creates no protected property or liberty interest.
4. Tavares's § 1231 claim lacked merit because his detention was governed by § 1226, not § 1231, where he did not yet have a final order of removal.
5. Tavares was not entitled to release or other habeas relief based on missing an initial USCIS interview because the interview was rescheduled and attended, and the governing regulations permit USCIS to waive an interview when it determines one is unnecessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Tavares's approximately seven-month detention violated due process because it had become unreasonably prolonged.
2. Whether Tavares's acquittal after his initial bond hearing constituted a material change in circumstances requiring release or a new bond hearing.
3. Whether detention and the alleged failure to facilitate Tavares's USCIS interview violated a protected liberty or property interest under the Fifth Amendment.
4. Whether Tavares's detention violated 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231 or 1255 and related regulations.
5. Whether Tavares's request for an order facilitating a future USCIS interview was moot after he attended the rescheduled interview.

Disposition

dismissed