Neyder Alonso Cuero Perlazo v. Robert Lynch et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conditionally granted Neyder Alonso Cuero Perlazo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held 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 entered and resided in the United States before being apprehended. It also concluded that prudential exhaustion was unnecessary or should be waived and that detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Holdings

1. Prudential administrative exhaustion was not required, and alternatively any exhaustion requirement should be waived, because the petition presented primarily legal statutory and constitutional questions, agency review was unlikely to eliminate the need for judicial review, delay would impose hardship, and exhaustion would likely be futile.
2. Section 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs detention of a noncitizen who has resided in the United States and was already within the country when apprehended and arrested.
3. Petitioner's detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A), without an individualized bond hearing, violated the Fifth Amendment because his detention was governed by § 1226(a), whose discretionary framework requires an individualized custody determination.
4. The court dismissed the Attorney General as a respondent but retained the Secretary of Homeland Security because retaining a higher-level respondent was appropriate to ensure enforcement of the conditional habeas relief if petitioner were transferred outside the district.

Questions Presented

1. Whether prudential administrative exhaustion should be required before the court considers petitioner'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 detention of a noncitizen who entered the United States unlawfully, has been residing in the country, and was apprehended within the United States rather than while actively seeking admission at the border or port of entry.
3. Whether detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A), without an individualized bond hearing, violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause when § 1226(a) governs the detention.
4. Whether the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Detroit ICE Field Office Director were proper respondents in the habeas action.

Disposition

writ_granted