Morillo de Parra v. Bullock

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Clara Rosa Morillo de Parra’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged her detention without an individualized bond hearing. The court held that her statutory claims were barred by prudential exhaustion and, alternatively, that she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court also rejected her constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act claims and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The petitioner's statutory claims were barred by the prudential exhaustion doctrine because the immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals could provide the requested bond hearing or release.
2. A noncitizen present in the United States who has not been lawfully admitted is an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), even when apprehended in the interior long after entry.
3. Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) without an individualized bond hearing did not violate the Due Process Clause as applied to the petitioner, who had not been lawfully admitted.
4. The petitioner's APA claims failed because habeas corpus provided an adequate remedy, and the APA does not apply when another adequate remedy exists in court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petitioner's statutory challenges to detention under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 were barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
2. Whether a noncitizen who entered without lawful admission and remains an applicant for admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than discretionary detention with a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
3. Whether mandatory detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Due Process Clause.
4. Whether the Administrative Procedure Act provided a basis for relief despite the availability of habeas corpus.

Disposition

denied