Luis Pacheco Bustamante v. Kristi Noem et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan considers a counseled petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 brought by an ICE detainee challenging the statutory and constitutional basis for his detention. The court concludes that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the detention of a noncitizen who had been residing in the United States before apprehension. The court conditionally grants habeas relief and determines that prudential exhaustion should not be required.

Holdings

1. Prudential exhaustion was not required because the central statutory question was principally legal, the constitutional challenge was not one the BIA could correct, and administrative review was unlikely to eliminate the need for judicial review. Alternatively, exhaustion was waived because pursuing it would likely be futile and delay would cause hardship.
2. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs detention of a noncitizen who has resided in the United States and was already inside the country when apprehended and arrested.
3. Because § 1226(a) governed petitioner's detention and establishes a discretionary detention-or-release framework, petitioner was entitled to an individualized bond hearing; continued detention under the mandatory § 1225(b)(2)(A) framework violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
4. The Secretary of Homeland Security would not be dismissed as a respondent because retaining her ensured that the court's conditional habeas relief would remain enforceable if petitioner were transferred outside the district.

Questions Presented

1. Whether prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies should be required before the court considered Bustamante's § 2241 challenge to his immigration detention.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs the detention of a noncitizen who entered the United States years earlier and was already residing in the country when apprehended.
3. Whether detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A), without an individualized bond hearing, violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
4. Whether the Secretary of Homeland Security could remain a respondent to ensure enforceability of the habeas relief if petitioner were transferred.

Disposition

writ_granted