Macario H. Ortega Miranda v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

Summary

The court grants Macario H. Ortega Miranda’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in part. It holds that his detention is governed by the discretionary detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and orders respondents to provide him with a bond hearing. The court declines to address the substantive due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims because relief is granted on procedural due process grounds.

Holdings

1. Exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required because pursuing an administrative appeal would have been futile after the BIA predetermined the bond-hearing issue in Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
2. A noncitizen who entered and remained in the United States without inspection, was apprehended while already present in the country, and was placed in removal proceedings was detained under the discretionary framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A), absent present-tense conduct actively seeking admission.
3. Because Ortega Miranda was detained under § 1226(a), his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's procedural Due Process Clause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies should be waived as futile where the BIA had recently predetermined the bond-hearing issue in Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
2. Whether a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection years earlier and was placed in removal proceedings is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3. Whether continued detention without a bond hearing violates the noncitizen's procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief on his substantive due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims.

Disposition

granted