Walter Pozo Palomino v. Kevin Raycraft et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conditionally granted Walter Pozo Palomino’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 § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs his detention and concluded that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Respondents were ordered to provide a bond hearing within five business days or release Palomino, and the United States Attorney General was dismissed as a respondent.

Holdings

1. The Court declined to enforce prudential exhaustion against Palomino and alternatively concluded that waiver of exhaustion was appropriate.
2. Section 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens such as Palomino who had resided in the United States and were already within the United States when apprehended and arrested.
3. Palomino's current detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
4. The ICE Detroit Field Office Director was not the only proper respondent; the Court retained that official and the Secretary of Homeland Security and dismissed the United States Attorney General.

Questions Presented

1. Whether prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies should bar or delay Palomino's § 2241 habeas petition.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), authorized Palomino's detention.
3. Whether detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated Palomino's Fifth Amendment due-process rights.
4. Whether the ICE Detroit Field Office Director was the only proper respondent.
5. What relief was appropriate under § 2241.

Disposition

writ_granted