Carlos Enrique Velasquez v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia explains its decision granting Carlos Enrique Velasquez’s amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition and ordering an immigration bond hearing. The court holds that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act do not bar review and that Velasquez’s detention was governed by the discretionary detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The court also concludes that detention without a bond hearing violated Velasquez’s Fifth Amendment due process rights.

Holdings

1. The Court retained jurisdiction over Velasquez's individualized § 2241 habeas claim. The Bautista class judgment did not provide individualized habeas relief to Velasquez or strip this Court of jurisdiction, and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and 1252(g) did not apply because Velasquez did not seek review of a removal order and the case did not concern the commencement, adjudication, or execution of an immigration order.
2. Because Velasquez had been present in the United States since 1998 and was not actively seeking admission, his detention was governed by the discretionary detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)(A). He was therefore entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations.
3. Velasquez's continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court determined that all three Mathews v. Eldridge factors favored him and ordered a bond hearing to vindicate his constitutional rights.
4. At a § 1226(a) bond hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee poses a danger to the community, or by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee is a danger or flight risk if the government seeks continued detention.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court retained jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 notwithstanding a nationwide class action and the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and 1252(g).
2. Whether Velasquez's detention was governed by the discretionary detention and bond-hearing framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
3. Whether detention without a bond hearing violated Velasquez's Fifth Amendment due process rights.

Disposition

other