Banegas v. Decker
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-02359
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Banegas v. Decker, Judge Caproni ordered supplemental and opposition briefs on a detention petition after a temporary stay of removal.
Alonso Banegas, the Government, and the respondents identified in the case were affected by the briefing schedule; the order specifically addressed Banegas’s detention, potential bond hearing, and removal proceedings.
What happened
In Banegas v. Decker, Alonso Banegas filed a petition asking the federal court to review his detention under a federal law allowing such petitions. The order did not decide whether he should be released or receive a bond hearing.
The Second Circuit had temporarily stopped Banegas’s removal while it reviewed his request for a longer stay and his challenge to the immigration appeals board’s decision denying relief from removal. The district court allowed Banegas to file a supplemental brief addressing the effect of that temporary stay.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Banegas’s supplemental brief by April 26, 2021, and the Government’s opposition by May 3, 2021. Each brief was limited to ten double-spaced pages, and the court urged the parties to address whether Banegas was entitled to a bond hearing where the Government would have to justify his continued detention.
The detailed version
- Banegas v. Decker · No. 1:21-cv-02359
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
On March 17, 2021, Alonso Banegas filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure that allows a person to challenge certain forms of detention. The opinion identifies Thomas Decker and others as respondents.
On March 26, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a temporary stay of removal while it considered Banegas’s formal motion for a stay and his petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his application for relief from removal.
Order
The district court ordered that Banegas could file a supplemental brief supporting his petition by April 26, 2021. The Government’s opposition was due May 3, 2021. Each brief was limited to ten pages, double spaced.
The court urged the parties to focus on the effect of the Second Circuit’s decision in Velasco Lopez v. Decker et al., 978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020), on whether Banegas was entitled to a bond hearing at which the Government would bear the burden of showing that his continued detention was justified.
Disposition and unresolved issues
This was a briefing order. The opinion did not grant or deny the habeas petition, decide whether Banegas was entitled to a bond hearing, or determine whether his continued detention was justified. The classification is procedural because the court set briefing and did not decide the underlying detention question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.