Douglas Ricardo Sura Cruz v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois grants Douglas Ricardo Sura Cruz’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and holds that he is entitled to a bond hearing. The court concludes that his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2), because he had been living in the United States for more than 11 years and was detained in the Midwest. The court also rejects the government’s arguments that the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions preclude review.

Holdings

1. The INA provisions invoked by respondents did not strip the district court of jurisdiction. Section 1252(g) applies only to the Attorney General's three specifically listed actions—commencing proceedings, adjudicating cases, and executing removal orders—and does not bar review of a detention decision. Section 1252(b)(9) does not bar a habeas challenge to detention and denial of a bond hearing that does not seek review of a removal order or challenge the process for determining removability. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not apply because petitioner challenged the scope of the government's detention authority, not a discretionary decision.
2. Section 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2)(A), governed Sura Cruz's detention because he had been living in the United States for more than eleven years and was not seeking admission at the border. He was therefore entitled to an individualized bond hearing.
3. Sura Cruz's detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the INA. The government was required either to provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a), with the government bearing the burden of proving dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, or to release him under reasonable conditions of supervision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), 1252(b)(9), or 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition challenging immigration detention and denial of a bond hearing.
2. Whether detention of a noncitizen who had lived in the United States for more than eleven years was governed by the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or the discretionary-detention provisions of § 1226(a).
3. Whether detaining Sura Cruz without an individualized bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
4. Whether the appropriate relief was an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge or release from custody.

Disposition

writ_granted