Haji S. v. Whitaker
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:18-cv-03493
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Haji S. v. Whitaker, Judge Magnuson granted the detention challenge in part and ordered a new bond hearing within 30 days.
Haji S., who was held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, was entitled to a new individualized bond hearing; the immigration judge was required to conduct it within 30 days.
What happened
In Haji S. v. Whitaker, Haji S. challenged his continued immigration detention, which had lasted about 19 months. He argued that the detention violated his constitutional right to due process, and both criminal convictions underlying the detention had been vacated.
The court concluded that the lengthy and indefinite detention was no longer justified, especially because the convictions supporting detention had been vacated and removal proceedings could continue for another year or more. The court rejected the government’s arguments and found that a bond hearing, rather than immediate release, was the appropriate next step.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted Haji S.’s petition in part, and ordered an immigration judge to hold a new bond hearing within 30 days. Judge Magnuson required an individualized decision on whether detention was needed to protect the community or prevent flight.
The detailed version
- Haji S. v. Whitaker · No. 0:18-cv-03493
- Paul Magnuson
- July 18, 2019
Background
Haji S. was held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), a statute requiring detention of certain people facing removal after qualifying criminal convictions. He had been in custody since December 20, 2017—about 19 months when the court ruled. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge unlawful detention, arguing that his continued detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protection.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the petition. The government objected. While the objections were pending, one of the two criminal convictions supporting Haji S.’s detention was vacated, and the second was also vacated. An immigration judge held bond hearings on June 3 and 4, 2019, but denied bond because the immigration court did not yet have evidence of the vacated convictions or the motion Haji S. had filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Haji S. then provided documentation showing that he had filed a motion to remand and terminate the removal proceedings and that both relevant convictions had been vacated.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered whether continued detention under § 1226(c) had become unconstitutional because it was excessively long and no longer served the statute’s purposes. The court discussed six factors used in similar cases: the length of detention, the likely remaining duration, detention conditions, delays caused by the detainee, delays caused by the government, and the likelihood of a final removal order.
The court focused on the first, second, and sixth factors. It found that 19 months of detention was far longer than the one-to-five-month periods discussed by the Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim. It also found that there was no clear end to the removal proceedings because Haji S. had motions pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals and could appeal an adverse decision. Finally, the recent vacatur of both criminal convictions made a final removal order less likely and undermined the basis for detention under § 1226(c).
The court concluded that Haji S.’s prolonged detention was “unjustified and arbitrary” and violated due process. It also determined that the earlier bond hearing was inadequate because the immigration judge had not considered the new evidence about the vacated convictions and had not made the required individualized findings about danger to the community or flight risk.
Disposition
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and granted Haji S.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in part. It ordered an immigration judge to hold a bond hearing within 30 days. At that hearing, the immigration judge must individually decide whether detention is necessary to protect the community or prevent Haji S. from fleeing. The order did not direct Haji S.’s immediate release.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.