Byron H.E. v. Becerra

Background

Byron H.E. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his confinement at Golden State Annex, a private detention facility in McFarland, California, operated by GEO Group, Inc. under a contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The opinion states that Byron H.E. is a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States around 1985, and was taken into ICE custody in December 2021 after being granted parole from California state prison. The parties did not dispute that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).

Byron H.E.’s petition claimed that his continued detention violated substantive and procedural due process. He named Moises Becerra, the Field Office Director of ICE’s San Francisco Field Office; Patrick J. Lechleitner, the Acting Director of ICE; Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick B. Garland, the Attorney General. He did not name the Facility Administrator of Golden State Annex.

Jurisdiction and proper respondent

The government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Byron H.E. had to name the Golden State Annex Facility Administrator as the respondent and file the petition in the Eastern District of California, where he was confined.

The court relied on the federal habeas statute and the Supreme Court’s decision in Rumsfeld v. Padilla. A habeas respondent is generally the person with immediate custody of the detained person and the power to bring that person before the court. For a challenge to present physical confinement, the usual respondent is the warden or facility administrator, rather than a more remote supervisory official.

Byron H.E. argued that Becerra was the proper custodian because Becerra was based in San Francisco and allegedly had the most immediate control over Golden State Annex. He also argued that the Facility Administrator, as an employee of a private contractor, lacked the legal authority and practical ability to bring him before the court, defend the detention, or provide court-ordered relief.

The court rejected that argument. It stated that Padilla requires the immediate custodian—the person responsible for maintaining custody, rather than authorizing it—to be named. The court found no principled basis for creating an exception for immigration detention at a private facility. It concluded that the Golden State Annex Facility Administrator was the proper respondent.

Disposition

The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the petition. It dismissed the petition without prejudice so that it could be amended to name the proper respondent and refiled in the Eastern District of California. The court did not reach the merits of Byron H.E.’s due-process challenges or decide whether his detention was lawful.