Marco Tulio Vasquez Perez v. Kevin Raycraft, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan grants Marco Tulio Vasquez Perez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court concludes that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), without access to a bond hearing under § 1226(a), violates due process because he was apprehended in the interior of the United States and was not actively seeking admission. The court orders his immediate release or, alternatively, an individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, and dismisses several respondents as improperly named.

Holdings

1. Raycraft, the ICE Field Office Director with control over Vasquez Perez's release, and Attorney General Bondi were proper respondents; Noem, DHS, and EOIR were dismissed.
2. Administrative exhaustion was not required and was waived because the claims were predominantly legal and constitutional, exhaustion would be futile, and delay would cause hardship.
3. Section 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the detention of a noncitizen who has resided in the United States for years, was apprehended in the interior, was not actively seeking admission, and was never determined inadmissible by an examining immigration officer.
4. Detaining Vasquez Perez under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Raycraft and Bondi were proper respondents in the § 2241 habeas action and whether Noem, DHS, and EOIR should remain parties.
2. Whether the court should require or waive prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies.
3. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or § 1226(a) governed the detention of a noncitizen who had lived in the United States for years, was apprehended in the interior, and was not actively seeking admission.
4. Whether detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Disposition

granted