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 challenge without prejudice because removal appeared reasonably foreseeable.
Joshua H., who sought release from immigration detention; the denial without prejudice left open a renewed challenge if he was not removed soon.
What happened
In Joshua H. v. William P. Barr, et al., Joshua H. challenged his continued immigration detention and asked for immediate release. He had been ordered removed to Liberia, but remained detained while immigration officials sought travel documents.
The court applied the rule that detention after a removal order cannot continue when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. It found that Liberia was cooperating, officials were arranging another interview, and travel documents were expected, so Joshua H. had not shown that removal was unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Joshua H.’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied the petition without prejudice, allowing a renewed challenge if he was not removed soon.
The detailed version
- Joshua H. v. Sessions · No. 0:18-cv-03357
- Susan Nelson
- July 19, 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 Joshua H. did not appeal that decision.
He was later released under an order of supervision because the Liberian Embassy was not regularly conducting interviews or issuing travel documents. After additional criminal convictions, including a 2015 conviction for driving while impaired, immigration officials detained him again when he was released from prison on April 16, 2018. He remained in immigration detention while officials sought travel documents from Liberia.
Joshua H. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal 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. Joshua H. objected, arguing that the Liberian Embassy was delaying his travel documents because of a civil claim related to an injury he suffered in custody.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis. Under that rule, detention after a final removal order is generally 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. If removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is not authorized by the governing statute.
The court acknowledged that Joshua H. had been detained for more than six months and for more than one year overall. It nevertheless found a significant likelihood of removal at that time. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had continued contacting the Liberian Embassy, the Embassy had requested a second interview, travel documents were expected, and the record showed that the government had regularly removed detainees to Liberia. The court concluded that delay alone did not establish that Liberia would not accept Joshua H.
Disposition
The court overruled Joshua H.’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in full, and denied the § 2241 petition without prejudice. The ruling allowed Joshua H. to bring a renewed challenge if he was not removed soon. The court entered judgment accordingly.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.