Lee S. v. Immigration and Custom Enforcement

Background

Lee S., a removable noncitizen held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. He alleged that his approximately seventeen-month pre-removal detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He also alleged that detention without bail violated the Eighth Amendment.

When Lee S. filed the petition, his removal order was not final, and his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The magistrate judge later found the Eighth Amendment claim meritless but concluded that the due process claim had merit because the prolonged detention without a bond hearing was unreasonable. The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition in part and ordering a bond hearing.

While the matter was pending, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the immigration judge’s deferral of removal and ordered Lee S. removed. The removal order became final on September 8, 2020. Lee S.’s detention therefore became post-removal detention governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231, rather than pre-removal detention under § 1226.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Lee S.’s due process claim based on pre-removal detention was moot because his detention status had changed. The court explained that pre-removal and post-removal detention claims are analyzed differently.

For post-removal detention, the court applied the rule that detention during the first six months after a final removal order is presumptively reasonable. Because Lee S. had been in post-removal detention for approximately four months, the court concluded that he was not entitled to habeas relief based on due process at that time.

Disposition

The court sustained the respondent’s objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It adopted the report and recommendation as modified, denied Count I—the due process claim—as moot, and ruled that the recommendation for a bond hearing was moot. The court dismissed Lee S.’s habeas petition without prejudice. The order does not separately state a disposition for Count II in the numbered order, although the opinion states that the magistrate judge found the Eighth Amendment claim meritless.

Procedural Posture

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the petition based on mootness after Lee S.’s detention status changed, rather than deciding the merits of the pre-removal due process claim.