Marin Portillo v. Decker

Background

Eddin Mauricio Marin Portillo, a Honduran citizen and national, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking for release from immigration detention. He was subject to a final removal order and had been detained at Orange County Jail in Goshen, New York, since March 2, 2021. Portillo sought release while the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered his petition challenging administrative decisions that he had not shown a reasonable fear of harm if returned to Honduras.

Portillo had previously been removed to Honduras in 2007 and 2018. After completing a New York state prison sentence on March 2, 2021, he was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. An asylum officer found that he had not established a reasonable fear of harm, and an immigration judge upheld that decision. Portillo then filed a petition for review and a motion to stay removal in the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit had not resolved those matters when the district court ruled, and a temporary stay of removal remained in effect.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted post-removal custody reviews of Portillo’s detention. It denied his requests for release, citing his immigration and criminal history and his status as an enforcement priority. The agency also issued decisions continuing his detention.

Legal framework

The court applied 8 U.S.C. § 1231, which governs detention after a person has been ordered removed. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, detention cannot continue when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. Six months is a presumptively reasonable period of detention, but detention lasting longer than six months does not by itself establish a violation. After that period, the detained person must provide good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future; the government must then respond with evidence addressing that showing.

The court also considered the regulations governing custody reviews under 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13. Those regulations provide procedures for reviewing continued detention and state that there is no administrative appeal from a decision denying a request for release under § 241.13.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Portillo’s statutory challenge. Although he had been detained for more than a year, the court found that his removal remained reasonably foreseeable. The government maintained diplomatic relations with Honduras, regularly removed noncitizens there by charter flight, had previously removed Portillo to Honduras twice, and expected to promptly obtain travel documents after the Second Circuit resolved his pending proceedings. The court also noted that ICE had already begun removal planning in April 2021.

The court reasoned that the pending Second Circuit litigation, including the temporary stay of removal, was the apparent reason removal had not occurred. Because Portillo had initiated that litigation, the court held that the delay did not establish that removal was not reasonably foreseeable under Zadvydas. The court further stated that, even if Portillo had made the required showing, the government had adequately explained that it was holding off on removal because of the pending proceedings.

The court also rejected Portillo’s substantive and procedural due-process claims under the Fifth Amendment. The substantive claim depended on the assertion that removal was not reasonably foreseeable, which the court had already rejected. As to procedural due process, Portillo argued that he lacked a timely and meaningful opportunity to contest detention, that the government acted too slowly on his release requests, and that he lacked a neutral decisionmaker to review the agency’s decisions.

The court found no constitutional defect in the detention framework and noted that Portillo had not identified a basis to conclude that the agency officials were biased. It also found no factual basis for concluding that the framework had been improperly applied: ICE had completed the required 90-day and 180-day reviews, served its decisions on Portillo, and resolved each additional release request within no more than 10 days. The court additionally noted that a bond hearing was unavailable under the detention statute governing people subject to reinstated removal orders.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer did not add a prejudice qualifier to the denial.