Ariel Diaz Perez v. Rose Thompson, Warden, Karnes County Immigration Processing Center, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas grants Ariel Diaz Perez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court holds that the government could not mandatorily detain him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) because he had been present in the United States for more than two years, was in full removal proceedings, and had not been determined inadmissible under the relevant statutory provisions. The court orders his release under appropriate conditions, prohibits removal or transfer under the present detention, and requires a bond hearing if he is later detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.

Holdings

1. Section 1252(g) does not bar district-court jurisdiction over a challenge to the legal basis for immigration detention because detention is not itself a decision to commence proceedings, adjudicate a case, or execute a removal order.
2. Neither § 1225(b)(4) nor, to the extent invoked, § 1252(b)(4) deprived the court of jurisdiction over petitioner's challenge to his detention.
3. Section 1252(b)(9) does not bar habeas jurisdiction over a challenge to detention where the petitioner does not seek review of a removal order, the decision to seek removal, or the process for determining removability.
4. Section 1225(b)(1) did not authorize petitioner's present mandatory detention.
5. Because § 1225(b)(1) was inapplicable, petitioner's current detention fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which entitled him to a bond hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), 1225(b)(4), or 1252(b)(9) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over a habeas challenge to immigration detention.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) authorized mandatory detention of a noncitizen who had entered the United States more than two years earlier, had been released under § 1226, remained in full removal proceedings, and had not been determined inadmissible under § 1225(b)(1)(A).
3. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b), governed the petitioner's current detention and entitled him to a bond hearing.
4. Whether the court should reach petitioner's separate constitutional challenge to his detention.

Disposition

writ_granted