Fernando Lemus Crispin v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

Summary

The court granted Fernando Lemus Crispin’s emergency motion and ordered the federal respondents to provide a new bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) before a different Immigration Judge. The court held that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(e) and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not bar review of constitutional challenges to the procedures used at the bond hearing and excused administrative exhaustion. It concluded that reliance on Lemus’s unlawful status, unauthorized employment, and alleged tax-reporting inconsistencies did not provide a constitutionally sufficient basis for finding him a flight risk.

Holdings

1. Section 1226(e) does not bar federal jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the procedures and considerations used in a § 1226(a) bond hearing, as opposed to routine review of the Immigration Judge's discretionary bond determination.
2. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar jurisdiction over a claim limited to whether an Immigration Judge's bond decision complied with due process.
3. The Court had discretion to excuse exhaustion of an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and exercised that discretion here.
4. The Immigration Judge's reliance on Lemus's unlawful status, unauthorized employment, and unsupported potential tax-reporting inconsistencies did not provide a constitutionally sufficient basis to deny bond based on flight risk.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to review whether Lemus's § 1226(a) bond hearing complied with due process.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived the District Court of jurisdiction over Lemus's constitutional challenge to the bond hearing.
3. Whether Lemus was required to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing the Immigration Judge's bond decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals before seeking federal habeas relief.
4. Whether the Immigration Judge's reliance on Lemus's unlawful status, unauthorized employment, and alleged tax inconsistencies provided a constitutionally sufficient basis to deny release on bond.

Disposition

remanded