Alexis Jose Valeriano v. Luis Soto, et al.

Summary

The District of New Jersey held that an immigrant who entered the United States without inspection and was apprehended after residing in the country for an extended period was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2). The court granted habeas relief in part by permitting the petitioner to seek a bond redetermination without reliance solely on the Board of Immigration Appeals’ interpretation of § 1225(b)(2), while declining to second-guess the immigration judge’s prior bond determination and denying the temporary restraining order.

Holdings

1. Section 1225(b)(2) does not apply to aliens apprehended within the territorial United States after entering without admission or inspection and remaining in the country for an extended period. Valeriano was therefore subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2).
2. The district court lacked jurisdiction to set aside, overrule, or second-guess the immigration judge's individualized bond determination under § 1226(a).
3. Because Valeriano was detained under § 1226(a), he was entitled to seek and receive a bond redetermination, and the immigration judge could not deny that redetermination solely on the basis of Matter of Hurtado and the BIA's interpretation of § 1225(b)(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) authorized detention of an alien apprehended within the territorial United States after entering without admission or inspection and remaining in the country for an extended period.
2. Whether the district court could set aside or reconsider the immigration judge's individualized bond determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a bond redetermination notwithstanding the immigration judge's prior consideration of the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of § 1225(b)(2) in Matter of Hurtado.
4. Whether the petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order should be granted.

Disposition

other