Bangaly Toure v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

Summary

The court granted Bangaly Toure's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) was improper because he should have been detained under § 1226(a). The court further held that mandatory detention without an individualized bond opportunity violated Toure's procedural due process rights. The court ordered his release and permanently enjoined his re-detention under § 1225(b), while permitting a motion to reopen if he is detained under § 1226(a) without a timely bond hearing.

Holdings

1. The district court retained jurisdiction under § 2241 to decide whether § 1225(b) or § 1226(a) governed Toure's detention and whether he was entitled to a bond hearing because those questions were collateral to removal proceedings and could not be meaningfully reviewed through a petition for review.
2. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) did not govern Toure's detention because he was no longer actively seeking admission after residing in the United States for an extended period; he should instead have been detained under § 1226(a).
3. Toure's continued mandatory detention without the possibility of a bond hearing violated his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
4. The district court lacked jurisdiction in the habeas action to decide whether DHS's motion to pretermit Toure's asylum application or proposed third-country removal violated the INA or the Fifth Amendment because those claims arose directly from removal proceedings and could be raised through the administrative and petition-for-review process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Toure's statutory detention classification and entitlement to a bond hearing despite the jurisdiction-stripping provisions governing removal proceedings.
2. Whether Toure was properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), or instead should have been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3. Whether Toure's continued mandatory detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the procedural Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
4. Whether the court had jurisdiction in habeas to determine whether DHS's motion to pretermit Toure's asylum application and proposed third-country removal complied with the INA or the Fifth Amendment.

Disposition

writ_granted