Joshua H. v. Sessions
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-03357
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Joshua H. v. Barr, Judge Nelson denied Joshua H.’s immigration-detention petition without prejudice, finding removal was significantly likely soon.
Joshua H., who was detained by immigration authorities, and the federal respondents responsible for his detention and removal.
What happened
Joshua H. v. Barr concerned Joshua H.’s challenge to his continued immigration detention under a federal law allowing detained people to seek release. He argued that he had been held too long and should be released.
Joshua H. had been ordered removed to Liberia and remained detained after completing a criminal sentence. Immigration officials were working with the Liberian Embassy to obtain travel documents, and the Embassy indicated that documents should be issued soon.
Judge Nelson overruled Joshua H.’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied the petition without prejudice. The court found a significant likelihood that Joshua H. would be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The detailed version
- Joshua H. v. Sessions · No. 0:18-cv-03357
- Susan Nelson
- July 16, 2019
Background
Joshua H. is a citizen of Liberia who entered the United States as a refugee in 1999 and later became a lawful permanent resident. After a 2009 second-degree assault conviction, immigration officials detained him and began removal proceedings. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Liberia in March 2010, and he did not appeal.
Joshua H. was later released under an order of supervision because the Liberian Embassy was not regularly conducting interviews or issuing travel documents. After he was released from prison on April 16, 2018, following a conviction for driving while impaired and other offenses, immigration officials detained him again. He remained in immigration detention for more than a year.
Joshua H. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law allowing a person to challenge the legality of government detention, arguing that he had been detained too long and seeking immediate release. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition without prejudice, and Joshua H. objected.
Legal standard
The Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis limits detention after a final removal order when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. Detention under that provision is presumed constitutional for six months. After that period, the government must provide sufficient evidence that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Court’s analysis
The court recognized that Joshua H. had been detained for more than six months. It nevertheless found that the government had shown a significant likelihood of removal. Immigration officials had regularly contacted the Liberian Embassy, and the Embassy had requested a second interview, indicated that travel documents should be forthcoming, and cooperated with the United States. The record also showed that the government had been able to remove other detainees to Liberia.
The court rejected the argument that the delay in obtaining travel documents established that removal was not reasonably foreseeable. It stated that mere delay was insufficient to show that Liberia would never accept Joshua H.
Disposition
The court overruled Joshua H.’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in its entirety, and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 without prejudice. The opinion stated that this allowed a renewed challenge if Joshua H. was not removed soon.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.