Angel D.M. v. Kristi Noem et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants petitioner Angel D.M.’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a habeas action challenging detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court concludes that the mandatory-detention provision does not apply to a noncitizen who entered the United States more than 30 years earlier and is not actively seeking admission, and that detention is instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court orders immediate release, subject to advance notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing if the government seeks to re-detain petitioner.

Holdings

1. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to a noncitizen who entered the United States more than thirty years earlier and is not actively seeking lawful entry; such a person is instead subject to the default detention framework of § 1226(a), which permits a bond hearing.
2. Petitioner satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction because he was likely to succeed on the merits, faced irreparable deprivation of liberty, and the balance of hardships and public interest favored relief.
3. The government had to release petitioner immediately; if it sought to re-detain him, it had to provide at least seven days' notice and conduct a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a noncitizen who entered the United States more than thirty years earlier and is already present in the country is an alien seeking admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
2. Whether petitioner was likely to succeed on his claim that detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated the Immigration and Nationality Act.
3. Whether petitioner satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction.
4. What interim remedy was appropriate if the government sought to detain petitioner under a different statutory provision.

Disposition

other