Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky grants Salvador Olmos Meza’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention. The court holds that Meza, who had lived in the United States for more than twenty years and was arrested under a Form I-200, was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and was therefore entitled to a bond hearing. The court also concludes that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and waives exhaustion.
Holdings
- Sections 1252(b)(9) and 1252(g) do not bar district-court jurisdiction over a habeas petition challenging the statutory and constitutional validity of immigration detention rather than the removal order, the decision to seek removal, or the process for determining removability.
- Section 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the detention of a noncitizen who has been present in the United States for many years, is not presently seeking admission at the border, and was arrested pursuant to a Form I-200 warrant.
- Meza's continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the INA.
- The proper remedy was release from the unlawful detention and a bond hearing on the merits before a neutral immigration judge before any redetention.
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) or § 1252(g) barred district-court habeas jurisdiction over Meza's challenge to the legality of his immigration detention.
- Whether Meza, a noncitizen who had been present in the United States for approximately twenty-five years and was arrested under a Form I-200 warrant, was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
- Whether Meza's continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the INA.
- Whether the proper remedy was release and a bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.
Disposition
writ_granted
Cases Cited (24)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688, 690 (2001)(followed)
- DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 19, 22 (2020)(followed)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288-89, 294-95, 301-03 (2018)(followed)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999)(followed)
- Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigam, 591 U.S. 103, 107-09 (2020)(followed)
- In re Vill. Apothecary, Inc., 45 F.4th 940, 947 (6th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 566 U.S. 93, 101 (2012)(followed)
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400, 413 (2024)(followed)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 24.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.