Sahil Sahil v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses a noncitizen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The magistrate judge concludes that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the petitioner’s detention and that continued detention without a bond hearing violates due process. The recommendation is to grant the petition and order immediate release subject to prior release conditions, or alternatively require a bond hearing within five days.

Holdings

1. The Report and Recommendation concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner's detention because he had been residing in the United States and was detained during ongoing removal proceedings rather than at the threshold examination or admission stage.
2. The Report and Recommendation concluded that Petitioner was entitled to a prompt bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3. The Report and Recommendation concluded that Petitioner's continued detention without notice of the reason for re-detention, an explanation of changed circumstances, or a hearing violated his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
4. The Report and Recommendation recommended immediate release under the same conditions as Petitioner's prior release, rather than merely directing a bond hearing; alternatively, it recommended a bond hearing within five days with the Government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk and danger to the community.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), governed Petitioner's detention after he had entered the United States, been released on recognizance, and remained in removal proceedings.
2. Whether Petitioner was entitled to a prompt bond hearing under § 1226(a).
3. Whether continued detention without notice, an explanation of changed circumstances, or a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
4. What habeas remedy was appropriate for the alleged unlawful detention and due process violation.

Disposition

other