Kelvin Toribio Hernandez Mendoza v. Craig Lowe, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants Kelvin Toribio Hernandez Mendoza’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his mandatory immigration detention. The court holds that Mendoza, who had been residing in the United States before his arrest, should have been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225(b). The court further concludes that his detention violated procedural due process, orders his release, and permanently enjoins re-detention under § 1225(b).

Holdings

1. The district court retained jurisdiction under § 2241 because the questions whether § 1225(b) or § 1226(a) governed Mendoza's detention and whether he was entitled to a bond hearing were wholly collateral to the removal proceedings and could not be meaningfully reviewed through a petition for review of a final removal order.
2. Section 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)(A), governed Mendoza's detention because he had entered and resided in the United States for an extended period and was no longer actively seeking admission.
3. Mendoza's continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), without the possibility of an individualized bond determination, violated his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
4. Craig Lowe, the warden of the facility where Mendoza was detained, was the proper respondent; Kristi Noem, Pamela Bondi, and Cammilla Wamsley were dismissed as respondents.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over Mendoza's challenge to the statutory basis for his immigration detention and his entitlement to a bond hearing.
2. Whether Mendoza was properly detained under the mandatory-detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), or instead should have been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3. Whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), without an individualized bond determination, violated Mendoza's procedural due process rights.
4. Whether the proper respondent in the habeas action was the warden of the facility where Mendoza was detained.

Disposition

writ_granted