Frank Higiro v. Michael Nessinger; David Wesling; Todd M. Lyons; Kristi Noem; and Pamela J. Bondi

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island grants Frank Higiro’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the constitutionality of his immigration bond hearing. The court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) does not bar habeas review of his constitutional claim and that due process required the immigration judge to consider alternatives to detention before determining whether he posed a danger or flight risk. The court orders the Government to provide Higiro with a new bond hearing within ten days.

Holdings

1. Section 1226(e) does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to review a constitutional or legal challenge to the standard or procedures underlying an immigration judge's bond decision.
2. Due process requires an immigration judge conducting a § 1226(a) bond hearing to meaningfully consider alternatives to detention before making a determination concerning dangerousness or flight risk. The immigration judge's failure to do so rendered Higiro's bond determination legally insufficient.
3. Higiro had standing to challenge the constitutionally deficient procedures and exhaustion did not foreclose consideration of his claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) barred the district court from reviewing Higiro's claim that the immigration judge's bond hearing violated due process.
2. Whether due process required the immigration judge to consider alternatives to detention before determining whether Higiro posed a danger to the community or flight risk.
3. Whether Higiro had standing and had sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies to pursue the alternatives-to-detention claim.

Disposition

writ_granted