Pacheco-Acosta v. Olson

Summary

The court grants Dailin Pacheco-Acosta’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging her detention pending immigration removal proceedings. It holds that, because she had resided in the United States for more than four years and was apprehended away from the border, her detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2)(A), entitling her to request a bond hearing. The opinion also addresses the statutory text, the Laken Riley Act, agency practice, and due process.

Holdings

1. A noncitizen who has resided in the United States for years and is apprehended while already present in the country, rather than while arriving or actively seeking admission, is governed by the discretionary detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2)(A).
2. Detaining Pacheco-Acosta without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and she was entitled to an individualized custody determination under § 1226(a).

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs the detention of a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection more than four years earlier, is already present in the country, and was apprehended away from the border while facing removal proceedings.
2. Whether detention without an individualized bond hearing violates the noncitizen’s Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Disposition

writ_granted