Shakhruz Kakhramon Ugli Kholmurodov v. Warden Cimarron Correctional Facility, et al.

Summary

The document is a Report and Recommendation addressing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by an Uzbekistani national detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The magistrate judge recommends finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the detention and ordering a prompt bond hearing at which the government bears the burden of proof, or release if no hearing occurs within five business days. The recommendation also advises denying the petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.

Holdings

1. The report and recommendation concluded that § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governed the detention of a noncitizen who had entered without inspection, resided in the United States for years, and was apprehended away from the border while not actively seeking admission.
2. The report and recommendation concluded that § 1226(a) and the Due Process Clause entitled Petitioner to a prompt, individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.
3. The report and recommendation concluded that, under the circumstances presented, due process required the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was a flight risk or danger to the community in order to continue detaining him.
4. The report and recommendation concluded that an individualized § 1226(a) bond hearing, rather than immediate release, was the appropriate remedy, with release required if a lawful hearing was not provided within five business days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner's current immigration detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or § 1226(a).
2. Whether § 1226(a) and due process entitled Petitioner to an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.
3. Whether due process required the government to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was a flight risk or danger to the community at the bond hearing.
4. Whether the court should decide Petitioner's additional claims that his detention was prolonged, arbitrary, transferred without prior notice, or otherwise unlawful.
5. Whether Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied as moot.

Disposition

other