Edualdo Emilcent v. David O’Neill, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Philadelphia Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Jamal L. Jamison, Warden of the Philadelphia Federal Detention Center

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that Edualdo Emilcent, who had entered the United States, been paroled, and later detained at an ICE check-in, was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. The court concluded that his detention instead fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and that due process required a bond hearing. The court found his present detention unlawful and ordered a bond hearing upon any future detention under § 1226.

Holdings

1. The court had jurisdiction because the petition challenged detention independently of and wholly collateral to the commencement, adjudication, or execution of removal proceedings, and the challenged detention authority was not discretionary within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
2. Emilcent was not an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had already entered and remained in the United States for more than four years before his detention.
3. Detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 without a bond hearing violated Emilcent’s due process rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction over a habeas challenge to immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
2. Whether Emilcent, who had been present in the United States for more than four years after entry and parole, was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
3. Whether detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause.

Disposition

writ_granted