Juan Calderon Moncada v. Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denies Juan Calderon Moncada’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his pre-removal immigration detention. The court holds that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to a noncitizen arrested in the interior years after entering the United States, but concludes that detention under § 1226(a) was procedurally proper because the petitioner received an individualized bond hearing. The court directs the clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to a noncitizen like Calderon Moncada who was arrested within the interior of the United States years after arriving in the country and was not seeking admission at a port of entry.
2. The record showed that Calderon Moncada's detention was governed by § 1226(a), and the statutory procedures were followed because he was arrested pursuant to a warrant and received an individualized bond hearing.
3. The petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing every six months because neither § 1226(a) nor its implementing regulations contain such a requirement, and the six-month limitation discussed in Zadvydas v. Davis concerns post-removal detention rather than pre-removal detention.
4. On the present record, the petitioner failed to show that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the government followed the procedures applicable to detention under § 1226(a), including the individualized bond process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)'s mandatory-detention provision applies to a noncitizen who entered without inspection, was arrested within the interior of the United States years after arrival, and is not seeking admission at a port of entry.
2. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the § 2241 challenge to the petitioner's immigration detention.
3. Whether detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was lawful where the petitioner was arrested pursuant to a warrant and received an individualized bond hearing.
4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a new bond hearing every six months or otherwise demonstrated a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Disposition

dismissed