Lebie B. v. Barr

Background

Lebie B. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued immigration detention. A magistrate judge recommended granting the petition in part and denying it in part: denying immediate release and a bond hearing before the federal court, but ordering a bond hearing before an immigration judge to decide individually whether continued detention was necessary.

The government objected. It argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1231, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226, governed Lebie B.’s detention because the Board of Immigration Appeals had dismissed his appeal and the Court of Appeals’ stay merely paused the removal period. The district court reviewed those objections independently.

Statutory basis for detention

The court held that § 1226 applied. It reasoned that when the Court of Appeals granted a stay of removal on January 29, 2019, the stay deferred the beginning of the removal period. Because the removal period had not begun, detention was governed by § 1226, the statute applying before and during immigration proceedings, rather than § 1231, which applies after those proceedings.

Due-process analysis

The court evaluated whether Lebie B.’s detention under § 1226 had become constitutionally unreasonable. It considered the total detention time, the likely duration of future detention, the detention conditions, delays caused by Lebie B., and public safety. The court did not address the likelihood that the removal proceedings would result in a final removal order because the government agreed that the earlier recommendation properly avoided speculation on that issue.

The court found that more than 22 months of detention weighed in favor of relief. Lebie B. had not received an individualized determination of whether he posed a danger to the community or was likely to flee. The court also found that the possible duration of additional detention weighed in favor of relief because the Court of Appeals had not yet ruled and further review could extend the detention.

The conditions of detention also supported relief. Lebie B. was held at the Kandiyohi County Jail under the same conditions as people serving criminal sentences, even though the immigration proceedings were civil rather than criminal. The court further found no evidence that Lebie B. had improperly delayed the proceedings. Seeking a stay and requesting extensions to file a brief were exercises of available legal rights, not the type of delay relevant to this analysis.

The court rejected the government’s argument that the length of a criminal sentence should be used to assess the constitutionality of the separate civil detention. It concluded that criminal incarceration and federal immigration detention serve different purposes.

Disposition

The court adopted the recommended disposition and granted in part and denied in part the petition. It ordered an immigration judge to provide Lebie B. with a bond hearing within 30 days. At that hearing, the immigration judge must make an individualized determination about whether detention is necessary to protect the community or prevent flight. The court denied Lebie B.’s request for immediate release and denied his request for a bond hearing before the federal court.