Claude Ngefack v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico grants Claude Ngefack’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention. The court concludes that 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225, governs because Ngefack entered the United States years before his arrest and is entitled to due process protections. The court orders the Government to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven days, with the Government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is warranted.

Holdings

1. Section 1226 governed Ngefack's detention because he had effected an entry into the United States and was arrested years after entry rather than at or near the border; the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2)(A) therefore did not apply.
2. Ngefack's detention violated procedural due process because, after his prior release and residence in the United States, he had a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody on bond and was redetained without a bond hearing or an assessment of materially changed circumstances.
3. The proper remedy was a prompt bond hearing under § 1226(a) at which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ngefack is a flight risk or danger to the community.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226 or the mandatory-detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) governed Ngefack's detention.
2. Whether Ngefack's detention without an individualized bond hearing violated procedural due process.
3. Whether the appropriate habeas remedy was a prompt bond hearing at which the Government bears the burden of proving continued detention is justified.

Disposition

writ_granted