Molina v. Mayorkas

Background

Juan J. Molina filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law allowing a person in custody to challenge detention that allegedly violates federal law or the Constitution. He was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility when he filed the action. He had been ordered removed from the United States in 2012 after a New York conviction for several controlled-substance and conspiracy offenses.

Molina originally filed the case in the Eastern District of New York. That court dismissed his challenge to the removal order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and transferred his separate challenge to his immigration confinement to the Southern District of New York. The Southern District had previously granted Molina permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Molina stated that he was granted conditional parole from criminal custody on March 23, 2022. Records cited by the court showed that he was released into United States immigration custody on July 11, 2022, and was then detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. He invoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection against deprivation of liberty without due process and argued that he could not be held indefinitely while awaiting removal. He asked to be released and also sought cancellation of removal or a new review of the removal proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court considered only Molina’s challenge to his immigration confinement because the Eastern District had already dismissed the challenge to his removal order. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the federal government generally has 90 days to remove a person who has been ordered removed. When that person is released from state custody, the 90-day period begins upon release, and the government must detain the person during that period.

The court concluded that Molina’s 90-day period began on July 11, 2022, when he was released from state custody into immigration custody. It therefore would end on or about October 10, 2022. Because the period had only recently begun and had not expired, the court held that Molina could not show that his detention was indefinite or unconstitutional. The court did not decide what constitutional or statutory rules might apply after the initial 90-day period.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied without prejudice Molina’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241. The order also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because Molina had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.