Bharatkumar Chaudhari v. Michael T. Rose, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted Bharatkumar Chaudhari’s habeas petition challenging his detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court held that, because Chaudhari had been present in the United States for several years, his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing, rather than § 1225(b)(2). The court ordered his release and enjoined the government from detaining him under § 1225(b)(2).

Holdings

1. Section 1225(b)(2) does not authorize detention without a bond hearing of a noncitizen who entered the United States without authorization years earlier and has been present in the country for several years; the provision applies to aliens at the country's border or otherwise actively seeking admission.
2. Chaudhari's detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), and therefore the government may not continue detaining him without the process required by § 1226(a), including a bond hearing.
3. The appropriate relief is a writ of habeas corpus requiring the government to release Chaudhari and an injunction prohibiting the government from detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) authorizes detention without a bond hearing of a noncitizen who entered the United States without authorization years earlier and is living in the interior during removal proceedings.
2. Whether Chaudhari's detention is instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing.
3. Whether habeas relief should take the form of an order requiring a bond hearing or an order requiring release and enjoining detention under § 1225(b)(2).

Disposition

writ_granted