Sara Luciola Villa Hernandez v. Michael Kunes, Warden of Clinton County Correctional Facility, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants Sara Luciola Villa Hernandez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court holds that her detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) was unlawful because she was not actively seeking admission to the United States, and that mandatory detention without a bond hearing violated procedural due process. The court orders her immediate release and permits her to seek attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Holdings

1. The district court had jurisdiction to consider Hernandez's § 2241 challenge because she challenged the legality of her detention, not the commencement, adjudication, or execution of removal proceedings, and her detention claim was independent of and wholly collateral to review of the removal process.
2. Hernandez was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing her § 2241 petition because exhaustion is judicially created and would have been futile in light of Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
3. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens who are affirmatively and presently seeking admission to the United States; it does not authorize mandatory detention of a noncitizen who previously entered and has been residing in the United States but is not currently seeking admission.
4. Hernandez's mandatory detention without a bond hearing violated procedural due process.
5. Hernandez may file a motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act within thirty days after entry of judgment because a § 2241 petition concerning immigration detention is a civil action under the EAJA.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
2. Whether Hernandez was required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking § 2241 habeas relief.
3. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) authorized mandatory detention of a noncitizen who had previously entered and resided in the United States and was not currently affirmatively seeking admission.
4. Whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing violated Hernandez's procedural due process rights.
5. Whether Hernandez could seek attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act for the § 2241 immigration-detention action.

Disposition

writ_granted