Perez Melo v. DuBois

Background

Ivan Dario Perez Melo sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a court to review whether a person is being held unlawfully. He challenged his continued mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He asked the court either to order his release or to require a bond hearing with specified procedural protections.

Perez Melo is a citizen of Colombia. After entering the United States in February 2022, he was later placed in immigration custody after immigration officials learned that Colombian records showed convictions for attempted homicide and aggravated theft, for which he had received a 70-month prison sentence in 2005. He remained detained at the Orange County Correctional Facility in a housing unit separate from criminal inmates.

In his immigration proceedings, Perez Melo applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied all three forms of relief and ordered his removal to Colombia. The Board of Immigration Appeals largely affirmed. It agreed that the attempted-homicide conviction was a particularly serious crime barring asylum and withholding of removal, and it rejected one theory of protection under the Convention Against Torture. But it sent another theory—concerning possible torture by Colombian military personnel disguised as insurgents—back to the immigration judge for further factual findings.

The opinion originally involved Carl DuBois, then the sheriff of Orange County, as a respondent. The court stated that Paul Arteta, the current sheriff, was automatically substituted for DuBois under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Legal standard

The court explained that mandatory detention under § 1226(c) may continue until removal proceedings end, but the Supreme Court has left open whether an unusually long detention without a bond hearing can violate due process. Courts therefore make a fact-specific assessment rather than applying an automatic six-month deadline.

The factors considered include the detention’s length; responsibility for delays; whether the detainee has asserted defenses to removal; how the detention compares with the prison sentence for the underlying crime; whether the detention facility differs meaningfully from a criminal prison; the nature of the convictions; and whether the detention is close to ending.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Perez Melo’s proposed rule that due process automatically requires a bond hearing after six months. It held that the fact that his detention exceeded six months did not by itself make the detention unconstitutional.

The court then considered the individual circumstances. Perez Melo had been detained for just over 14 months, which favored him to some extent. The court found no evidence that either side had unreasonably delayed the removal proceedings. Perez Melo had diligently pursued available immigration claims, while the government had not engaged in dilatory tactics. His pending Convention Against Torture claim also weighed slightly in his favor because he might still obtain relief from removal.

Other factors weighed against requiring a bond hearing. His 14 months of immigration detention were substantially shorter than his 70-month criminal sentence, and the court found that the nature of the conduct underlying his convictions was particularly violent based on Colombian court records. The court also considered a government declaration stating that Perez Melo had initiated a physical altercation with another detainee in September 2022; the opinion noted that Perez Melo did not deny that the altercation occurred.

The conditions-of-detention factor favored Perez Melo, although only weakly. Immigration detainees were housed separately from criminal inmates, but the government had not explained how the conditions in that unit differed from those in the facility’s correctional units. The court also recognized that the detention might continue for several months, but found no indication that it would continue indefinitely because the immigration proceedings were moving forward and would eventually end through a final decision and any appeals.

Disposition

The court held that Perez Melo’s continued detention was not unreasonable or unjustified at that time and that due process did not require a bond hearing. Judge John G. Koeltl denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed the clerk to close the pending motions and the case. The court stated that Perez Melo could file another petition if future changes in the length or circumstances of his detention raised new constitutional concerns.