Brenda Flor Martinez Herrera v. Samuel Olson, Field Office Director, Chicago Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky grants Brenda Flor Martinez Herrera’s habeas petition challenging her immigration detention. The court holds that, because Herrera had previously been paroled into the United States and was not arriving when re-detained, mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) did not apply; instead, she was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and was entitled to a bond hearing. The court also concludes that her detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and orders her immediate release or a bond hearing upon any re-detention.

Holdings

1. Herrera was not 'arriving in the United States' when she was re-detained nearly three years after entering the country and therefore was not subject to expedited removal or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i).
2. Herrera was not subject to expedited removal and mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) because she had previously been paroled into the United States.
3. Expiration of Herrera's humanitarian parole did not restore her to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1). Because she was detained under § 1226, she was entitled to a bond hearing.
4. Herrera's detention violated the Fifth Amendment because all three Mathews v. Eldridge factors favored providing a bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Herrera was subject to expedited removal and mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) as a noncitizen arriving in the United States.
2. Whether Herrera was subject to expedited removal and mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) despite having previously been paroled into the United States.
3. Whether the expiration of humanitarian parole restored Herrera to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), or instead required detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 with access to a bond hearing.
4. Whether Herrera's detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Disposition

writ_granted