Elizabeth Roman Ariza v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Summary

The court grants Elizabeth Roman Ariza’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that her detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court concludes that Ariza, who had been present in the United States for more than two years and was placed in regular removal proceedings, was not an alien seeking admission under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court also holds that it has jurisdiction to review her detention and waives any exhaustion requirement.

Holdings

1. Section 1252(b)(9) does not bar district-court habeas jurisdiction over a challenge to the statutory and constitutional validity of immigration detention when the petitioner does not seek review of a removal order, the decision to seek removal, or the process by which removability will be determined.
2. For a noncitizen who has been present in the United States for more than two years, is in standard removal proceedings, is not presently seeking admission, and was arrested under a Form I-200 warrant, 8 U.S.C. § 1226—not § 1225(b)(2)(A)—governs detention.
3. Ariza's continued detention without a merits bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the INA.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Ariza's immigration detention notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9).
2. Whether Ariza's detention was governed by the mandatory-detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or the discretionary detention and bond-hearing framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3. Whether Ariza's continued detention without an individualized merits bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the INA.
4. What relief was appropriate for the unlawful detention.

Disposition

writ_granted