Pride Ngu Fon v. Samuel Olson, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky considers Pride Ngu Fon’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his immigration detention. The court holds that Fon’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2)(A), because he had been present in the United States for more than two years and was not actively seeking admission. The court grants the petition and concludes that Fon is eligible to request a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

Holdings

1. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens who are seeking admission, particularly arriving aliens, while § 1226(a) governs noncitizens already present in the United States and detained pending removal proceedings. Because Fon had resided in the United States for more than two years and was not arriving or actively seeking admission, his detention was governed by § 1226(a), which entitled him to request a bond hearing.
2. The entry-fiction doctrine did not apply to Fon because he had resided in the United States for more than two years, was not detained shortly after unlawful entry, and was not formally paroled into the country.
3. Fon's detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and he was entitled to an individualized custody determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Fon's detention was governed by the mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or the discretionary detention and bond-hearing provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
2. Whether the entry-fiction doctrine deprived Fon of due-process protections because he had not been formally admitted or paroled into the United States.
3. Whether Fon's detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Disposition

writ_granted