Ricardo Perez Ramirez v. Russell Hott, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denies Ricardo Perez Ramirez’s habeas petition challenging his detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings. The court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than § 1226(a), governs because Ramirez entered the United States without inspection and is therefore deemed an applicant for admission, making his detention mandatory. The court also rejects his Fifth Amendment due process claim and concludes that a nationwide class action judgment from the Central District of California does not bind the court.

Holdings

1. A noncitizen present in the United States who has not been admitted is deemed an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Because Ramirez entered without inspection and was not admitted, § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than § 1226(a), governs his detention.
2. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires mandatory detention during removal proceedings when an immigration officer determines that an applicant for admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted; it does not provide a right to a bond hearing.
3. Applying § 1225(b)(2)(A) to unadmitted noncitizens does not render § 1226(c) or the Laken Riley Act superfluous because those provisions impose a distinct temporal requirement concerning when covered noncitizens must be taken into custody.
4. The petitioner's detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not violate the Fifth Amendment because he received the process Congress provided for noncitizens in his position.
5. The Central District of California's orders in Maldonado Bautista did not bind the Eastern District of Kentucky or require a bond hearing for Ramirez.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), governs the detention of a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection and was later apprehended during removal proceedings.
2. Whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires mandatory detention without a bond hearing for such a noncitizen.
3. Whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the petitioner's Fifth Amendment due-process rights.
4. Whether relief issued in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz required the Eastern District of Kentucky to order a bond hearing for the petitioner.

Disposition

denied