Arelis Modesta Garcia Canales v. Jonathan Florentino, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Arelis Modesta Garcia Canales’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than § 1225 because she was apprehended inside the United States after residing there for an extended period, and ordered her immediate release without additional conditions. The court also enjoined detention under § 1225, imposed a 14-day restriction on detention under § 1226(a), and retained jurisdiction over any future detention.

Holdings

1. A noncitizen who entered without inspection but was apprehended inside the United States after residing there for an extended period is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225; detention under § 1226 requires an opportunity to seek bond.
2. Section 1252(b)(9) does not strip the district court of jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to continued detention that is not inextricably linked to a removal action.
3. The government may not transform an unlawful detention into a lawful one by asserting an alternative, retrospective statutory justification for the first time during habeas litigation.
4. The appropriate relief was to grant the § 2241 petition, order immediate release under the pre-detention conditions, return seized personal property, enjoin detention under § 1225, and retain jurisdiction to address any future detention.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2022, was later apprehended inside the country after residing there for an extended period, and had no final removal order could be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to continued detention.
3. Whether the government could defend an allegedly unlawful detention through an alternative statutory justification first raised during the litigation.
4. Whether immediate release and injunctive relief were appropriate remedies for the unlawful detention.

Disposition

writ_granted