Jose Samuel Pacheco-Ascencio v. Kevin Raycraft et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conditionally granted Jose Samuel Pacheco-Ascencio’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his immigration detention. The court held that detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), concluded that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process, and ordered a bond hearing within five business days or immediate release.

Holdings

1. The court declined to enforce prudential exhaustion and alternatively concluded that waiver of exhaustion was appropriate.
2. Section 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs detention of a noncitizen who resided in the United States and was already within the country when apprehended and arrested.
3. Petitioner's current detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
4. The Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper respondent; the court retained the Field Office Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security and dismissed the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies should bar or delay the § 2241 petition.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs detention of a noncitizen who resided in the United States and was apprehended within the country.
3. Whether Petitioner's detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
4. Whether the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper respondent in the habeas action.

Disposition

writ_granted