Jorge Alvarez-Lopez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan grants Jorge Alvarez-Lopez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), governs his detention and orders a bond redetermination hearing or release. The court declines to reach the merits of his Due Process claim, retains the ICE Detroit Field Office Director and Attorney General as respondents, dismisses the remaining respondents, and denies attorney fees and costs.

Holdings

1. The court declined to require administrative exhaustion because the petition presented purely legal questions, the BIA could not resolve Petitioner's constitutional challenge, administrative review was unlikely to provide relief, and further detention would create hardship.
2. Section 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs detention of a noncitizen who has been residing in the United States and is apprehended inside the country, rather than arriving at the border or a port of entry seeking admission.
3. Because § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention, he was entitled to a discretionary bond redetermination hearing, and his continued detention without such a hearing violated federal law.
4. Raycraft was a proper respondent as Petitioner's immediate custodian, and Bondi would remain a respondent because Petitioner also sought declaratory relief concerning a Department of Justice-coordinated detention directive and Bondi was responsible for its implementation and enforcement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should require exhaustion of administrative remedies before considering the § 2241 petition.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs the detention of a noncitizen who has resided in the United States for years and was apprehended inside the country rather than while seeking admission at the border or a port of entry.
3. Whether detention under the asserted statutory authority was unlawful because Petitioner was denied the bond redetermination hearing available under § 1226(a).
4. Which respondents were proper parties to the habeas action under the immediate-custodian rule.
5. Whether Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process claim should be decided.

Disposition

writ_granted