Guadalupe Jara Dominguez v. Laura Hermosillo, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington grants Guadalupe Jara Dominguez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court holds that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful, excuses exhaustion of administrative remedies, and orders Respondents to release him or provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen days of his request.

Holdings

1. The petition was ripe for review because petitioner was suffering a concrete and actual injury from ongoing detention under a mandatory-detention policy that the court had already determined violated the INA; the absence of a prior bond hearing did not make the controversy abstract or hypothetical.
2. Petitioner was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief because exhaustion was excused as futile.
3. Because petitioner entered the United States without inspection but was not apprehended upon arrival and had resided in the United States, he was not seeking admission and could not be subjected to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). His detention was instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits release on bond.
4. Immediate release was not required at that stage; a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was sufficient relief to correct the unlawful detention.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the habeas petition was ripe even though petitioner had not yet received or requested a bond hearing.
2. Whether petitioner was required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief.
3. Whether a person who entered the United States without inspection, was not apprehended upon arrival, and later resided in the United States could be subjected to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), or instead was entitled to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
4. Whether the appropriate habeas remedy was immediate release or an opportunity for a bond hearing.

Disposition

writ_granted