Castaneda v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Castaneda v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/35

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1994

LEI TI CI A CASTAEDA,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ee,

v.

STEVE SOUZA, Super i nt endent , Br i st ol Count y House of Corr ect i ons,i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y and hi s successor s and assi gns,

Respondent , Appel l ant ,

BRUCE E. CHADBOURNE, Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or , Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce,Of f i ce of Det ent i on and Removal , U. S. I mmi gr at i ons and Cust oms

Enf orcement , U. S. Depart ment of Homel and Secur i t y, i n hi sof f i ci al capaci t y and hi s successors and assi gns; J OHN T. MORTON,

Di r ector , U. S. I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms Enf orcement , U. S.Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y and hi ssuccessor s and assi gns; J EH J OHNSON, Secret ary, U. S. Depar t ment

of Homel and Secur i t y, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y and hi s successor sand assi gns; ERI C H. HOLDER, J R. , At t or ney Gener al , U. S.Depar t ment of J ust i ce, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y and hi s

successors and assi gns,

Respondent s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

No. 13- 2509

CLAYTON RI CHARD GORDON, on behal f of hi msel fand ot her s si mi l ar l y si t uat ed,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ee,

PRECI OSA ANTUNES; GUSTAVO RI BEI RO FERREI RA;VALBOURN SAHI DD LAWES; NHAN PHUNG VU,

Pet i t i oner s,


2/35

v.

ERI C H. HOLDER, J R. , Uni t ed St ates At t orney General ; J OHNSANDWEG, Act i ng Di r ect or ; SEAN GALLAGHER, Act i ng Fi el d Of f i ceDi r ect or ; CHRI STOPHER J . DONELAN; MI CHAEL G. BELOTTI , Sher i f f ;STEVEN W. TOMPKI NS, Sher i f f ; THOMAS M. HODGSON, Sher i f f ; J OSEPH

D. MCDONALD, J R. , Sher i f f ; RAND BEERS, Act i ng Secret ary ofHomel and Secur i t y,

Respondent s, Appel l ant s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mi chael A. Ponsor , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eTor r uel l a, Dyk, * and Thompson,

Ci r cui t J udges.

El i ani s N. Pr ez, Seni or Li t i gat i on Counsel , Uni t ed St at esDepar t ment of J ust i ce, Ci vi l Di vi si on, Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i onLi t i gat i on, wi t h whom Sar ah B. Fabi an, Tr i al At t or ney, Di st r i ctCour t Sect i on, St uar t F. Del er y, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Ci vi lDi vi si on, Col i n A. Ki sor , Di r ector , Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i onLi t i gat i on, and El i zabet h J . St evens, Assi st ant Di r ect or , wer e on

br i ef , f or r espondent s- appel l ant s St eve Souza, Er i c H. Hol der , J r . ,J ohn Sandweg, Sean Gal l agher , Chr i st opher J . Donel an, Mi chael G.Bel l ot t i , St even W. Tompki ns, Thomas M. Hodgson, J oseph D.McDonal d, J r . , and J eh C. J ohnson.

Gr egor y Romanovsky, wi t h whomLi vi a Lungul escu and RomanovskyLaw Of f i ces wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee Cast aeda.

Mat t hew R. Segal , wi t h whom Adr i ana Laf ai l l e, Amer i can Ci vi lLi ber t i es Uni on of Massachuset t s, J udy Rabi novi t z, Euni ce Lee,Mi chael Tan, ACLU Foundat i on I mmi gr ant s Ri ght s Pr oj ect , El i zabet hBadger , and Lut her an Soci al Ser vi ces wer e on br i ef , f or appel l eeGor don.

Al i na Das, Sean McMahon, Legal I ntern, Etan Newman, Legal

I nt er n, and Washi ngt on Squar e Legal Ser vi ces, I nc. , I mmi gr antRi ght s Cl i ni c, on br i ef f or Det ent i on Wat ch Net wor k, Fami l i es f orFr eedom, Gr eat er Bost on Legal Servi ces, Harvar d I mmi gr at i on andRef ugee Cl i ni cal Progr am, I mmi gr ant Def ense Pr oj ect , I mmi gr antRi ght s Cl i ni c, Mai ne Peopl e s Al l i ance, Nat i onal I mmi gr ant J ust i ce

*Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.- 2-


3/35

Cent er , Pol i t i cal Asyl um/ I mmi gr at i on Repr esent at i on ( PAI R) Pr oj ect ,Uni ver si t y of Mai ne School of Law I mmi gr ant and Ref ugee Ri ght sCl i ni c, as ami ci cur i ae i n suppor t of pet i t i oner s- appel l eesCast aeda & Gor don.

Pr asant D. Desai and I andol i & Desai , P. C. , on br i ef f orAmer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on Foundat i on, Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es

Uni on Foundat i on of Massachuset t s, Amer i can I mmi gr at i on Lawyer sAssoci at i on, and t he Nat i onal I mmi gr at i on Pr oj ect of t he Nat i onalLawyer s Gui l d, as ami ci cur i ae i n suppor t of pet i t i oner - appel l eeCast aeda.

Oct ober 6, 2014


4/35

DYK, Circuit Judge. I n t hese consol i dated habeas cases,

we must det er mi ne whet her t he pet i t i oner s, t wo al i ens, ar e subj ect

t o t he mandat or y det ent i on pr ovi si on of t he I mmi gr at i on and

Nat i onal i t y Act , 8 U. S. C. 1226( c) . Subsect i on 1226( c) provi des

t hat t he At t or ney Gener al shal l t ake i nt o cust ody any al i en, who

has commi t t ed cer t ai n pr edi cat e cr i mes, when t he al i en i s

r el eased. Unl i ke ot her al i ens f aci ng t he possi bi l i t y of r emoval

f r om t he Uni t ed St at es, al i ens subj ect t o mandat or y det ent i on ar e

gener al l y i nel i gi bl e f or bai l even i f t hey show t o t he At t or ney

Gener al s sat i sf act i on t hat t hey ar e not danger ous and ar e l i kel y

t o appear at r emoval hear i ngs.

Each of t he pet i t i oner s her e commi t t ed a pr edi cat e cr i me

l i st ed i n 1226( c) 1 but was not t aken i nt o cust ody by t he At t orney

Gener al unt i l year s af t er bei ng r el eased f r om st at e cust ody.

Because 1226( c) onl y appl i es t o al i ens det ai ned when . . .

r el eased f r om cr i mi nal cust ody, and because t he pet i t i oner s wer e

not t i mel y det ai ned under any reasonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he

st at ut e, we concl ude t hat t he pet i t i oner s ar e not subj ect t o

mandat ory detent i on under 1226( c) and are ent i t l ed t o an

i ndi vi dual i zed bai l hear i ng under 1226( a) . We t her ef or e af f i r m

t he di st r i ct cour t s gr ant of habeas cor pus r el i ef i n each case.

1 Predi cat e cr i mes under 1226( c) cover a var i et y ofof f enses. Of not e i n t hi s case, non- vi ol ent drug possessi on i s apr edi cat e act . See 8 U. S. C. 1226( c) ( 1) ( B) , 1227( A) ( 2) ( B) ( i ) .

- 4-


5/35

I.

A.

The mandat or y det ent i on provi si on of sect i on 1226,

subsect i on ( c) , i s par t of a sect i on of t he I mmi gr at i on and

Nat i onal i t y Act whi ch gover ns t he ar r est and det ent i on of al i ens

subj ect t o r emoval f r om t he Uni t ed St at es. See gener al l y 8 U. S. C.

1226. The gener al r ul e under t hat sect i on i s that al i ens

ar r est ed and charged wi t h removal may be r el eased on bond pendi ng

r emoval proceedi ngs:

( a) Ar r est , det ent i on, and r el ease

On a war r ant i ssued by t he At t or ney Gener al , an al i enmay be ar r est ed and det ai ned pendi ng a deci si on onwhet her t he al i en i s t o be r emoved f r om t he Uni t edSt at es. Except as pr ovi ded i n subsect i on ( c) [ t hemandat or y det ent i on pr ovi si on] of t hi s sect i on andpendi ng such deci si on, t he At t or ney Gener al

( 1) may cont i nue to det ai n t he ar r est ed al i en; and

( 2) may rel ease t he al i en on

( A) bond of at l east $1, 500 . . . ; or

( B) condi t i onal par ol e . . . .

I d. 1226( a) ( emphasi s added) . The st at ut e t hus pr ovi des that

af t er an al i en s ar r est t he At t or ney Gener al may cont i nue t o

det ai n t he ar r est ed al i en or may rel ease t he al i en on bond or

par ol e. I d. 1226( a) ( 1) , ( 2) . 2 We r ef er t o t hi s pr ovi si on,

2 Al t hough t he At t orney General now shares t heser esponsi bi l i t i es wi t h t he Secr et ar y of Homel and Secur i t y ( seeHomel and Secur i t y Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 296, 402, 441,

- 5-


6/35

subsect i on ( a) , as t he gener al det ent i on pr ovi si on. The gener al

det ent i on pr ovi si on does not r equi r e t he At t or ney Gener al t o

r el ease an al i en under any par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances, nor does i t

l i mi t t he f act or s t hat t he At t or ney Gener al may consi der i n

deci di ng whet her t o det ai n or r el ease an al i en. See i d.

The process by whi ch t he At t or ney General det er mi nes

whet her an al i en wi l l be rel eased on bond pur suant t o subsect i on

( a) i s gover ned by admi ni st r at i ve r egul at i ons. See gener al l y 8

C. F. R. 1236. 1. The f i r st st ep i n t he pr ocess i s a bond

det er mi nat i on by an i mmi gr at i on enf or cement of f i cer . See i d.

1236. 1( c) ( 8) . To be r el eased, an al i en must pr ove t o t he

sat i sf act i on of t he of f i cer t hat hi s r el ease woul d not endanger

ot her per sons or pr oper t y and t hat he i s l i kel y t o appear f or any

f ut ur e pr oceedi ngs. I d. Rel ease may be r evoked ( i f i t i s gr ant ed

at al l ) at any t i me i n t he di scret i on of t he i mmi gr at i on

enf or cement of f i cer . I d. 1236. 1( c) ( 9) .

An al i en di ssat i sf i ed wi t h hi s i ni t i al bond det er mi nat i on

may r equest a redetermi nat i on of bond by an admi ni st r at i ve

i mmi gr at i on j udge. I d. 1236. 1( d) ( 1) . The i mmi gr at i on j udge

appl i es t he same st andar d as t he enf or cement of f i ci al s and reaches

an i ndependent j udgment about t he al i en s el i gi bi l i t y f or r el ease.

See i d. I f t he al i en i s st i l l di ssat i sf i ed wi t h hi s bond deci si on,

116 St at . 2135 ( Nov. 25, 2002) ) , f or conveni ence, we wi l l r ef er t ot hi s aut hor i t y as r esi di ng i n t he At t or ney Gener al and hi s assi gns.

- 6-


7/35

he may t ake a f ur t her appeal t o t he Boar d of I mmi gr at i on Appeal s

( BI A) . I d. 1236. 1( d) ( 3) .

No j udi ci al r evi ew i s avai l abl e f or an al i en s bond

det er mi nat i on. The st at ut e pr ovi des:

The At t or ney General s di scr et i onary j udgment r egardi ngt he appl i cat i on of t hi s sect i on shal l not be subj ect t or evi ew. No cour t may set asi de any act i on or deci si on byt he At t or ney Gener al under t hi s sect i on r egar di ng t hedet ent i on or r el ease of any al i en or t he gr ant ,r evocat i on, or deni al of bond or par ol e.

8 U. S. C. 1226( e) . Thus, t he excl usi ve aut hor i t y t o make and

r evi ew bond det er mi nat i ons l i es wi t h the execut i ve br anch, whose

di scret i onar y deci si ons ar e gener al l y i mmune f r omr evi ew i n Ar t i cl e

I I I c o u r t s .

B.

The mandat or y det ent i on provi si on, 1226( c) , i s f r amed

as an except i on t o 1226( a) s gener al det ent i on pr ovi si on. See

i d. 1226( a) ( Except as pr ovi ded i n subsecti on ( c) . . . . ) .Under t hi s except i on, al i ens who have commi t t ed one or more

pr edi cate cr i mes ar e to be detai ned by t he At t orney General

when . . . r el eased f r om cr i mi nal cust ody, and may not be

r el eased on bond except i n r are ci r cumst ances not pr esent here. 3

3 An al i en may be rel eased i f t he At t orney Generalconcl udes t hat hi s r el ease i s necessar y f or wi t ness pr ot ect i onpur poses r el at ed t o a maj or cr i mi nal pr osecut i on or i nvest i gat i on.8 U. S. C. 1226( c) ( 2) . The al i en must al so demonst r at e t hat he i snot danger ous or a f l i ght r i sk, as he woul d under gener aldet ent i on. I d.

- 7-


8/35

The sol e procedural saf eguar d f or such al i ens i s a J oseph hear i ng

at whi ch the al i en may avoi d mandat ory det ent i on by demonst r at i ng

t hat he i s not an al i en, was not convi ct ed of t he pr edi cat e cr i me,

or t hat t he I NS [ now I CE] i s ot her wi se subst ant i al l y unl i kel y to

est abl i sh t hat he i s i n f act subj ect t o mandat or y det ent i on.

Demore v. Ki m, 538 U. S. 510, 514 n. 3 ( 2003) ; see al so 8 C. F. R.

3. 19( h) ( 2) ( i i ) ; I n r e J oseph, 22 I . & N. Dec. 799 ( BI A 1999) .

The pr edi cat e cr i mes f or mandat or y det ent i on i ncl ude

aggr avat ed f el oni es, cr i mes of mor al t ur pi t ude, human t r af f i cki ng,

cer t ai n f i r ear m of f enses, t r eason, espi onage, t er r or i sm, and

var i ous ot her s. See i d. 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) - ( D) . Of r el evance her e,

t hey al so i ncl ude vi ol at i ons of st at e, f eder al , or f or ei gn l aws

r el at i ng t o cont r ol l ed subst ances, f r omdr ug t r af f i cki ng t o si mpl e

possessi on. See i d. 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) , 1182( a) ( 2) . As t hi s cour t

hel d i n Saysana v. Gi l l en, 590 F. 3d 7, 15- 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ,

mandat or y det ent i on i s l i mi t ed t o si t uat i ons i n whi ch t he al i en i s

r el eased f r om cust ody rel at ed t o one of t he pr edi cat e cr i mes.

The r el evant t ext of subsect i on ( c) r eads as f ol l ows:

( c) Det ent i on of cri mi nal al i ens

( 1) Cust ody

The At t or ney General shal l t ake i nt o cust ody any al i enwho

( A) i s i nadmi ssi bl e by reason of havi ng commi t t edany of f ense cover ed i n sect i on 1182( a) ( 2) of t hi st i t l e ,

- 8-


9/35

( B) i s deport abl e by r eason of havi ng commi t t ed anyof f ense cover ed i n sect i on 1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i ) ,( A) ( i i i ) , ( B) , ( C) , or ( D) of t hi s t i t l e,

( C) i s depor t abl e under sect i on 1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) oft hi s t i t l e on t he basi s of an of f ense f or whi ch t he

al i en has been sent ence[ d] t o a t er m of i mpr i sonmentof at l east 1 year , or

( D) i s i nadmi ssi bl e under sect i on 1182( a) ( 3) ( B) oft hi s t i t l e or depor t abl e under sect i on 1227( a) ( 4) ( B)of t hi s t i t l e,

when t he al i en i s r el eased, wi t hout r egar d t o whet hert he al i en i s r el eased on par ol e, super vi sed r el ease, orpr obat i on, and wi t hout r egard t o whether t he al i en maybe arr est ed or i mpr i soned agai n f or t he same of f ense.

( 2) Rel ease

The At t or ney General may r el ease an al i en descr i bed i npar agr aph ( 1) onl y i f t he At t or ney Gener al deci despur suant t o [ 18 U. S. C. 3521] t hat r el ease of t he al i enf r om cust ody i s necessar y [ f or wi t ness pr ot ect i on i n amaj or cri mi nal case] , and t he al i en sat i sf i es t heAt t or ney Gener al t hat t he al i en wi l l not pose a danger t ot he saf et y of ot her per sons or of pr oper t y and i s l i kel yt o appear f or any schedul ed pr oceedi ng. A deci si onr el at i ng t o such r el ease shal l t ake pl ace i n accor dancewi t h a pr ocedur e t hat consi der s t he sever i t y of t he

of f ense commi t t ed by t he al i en.

8 U. S. C. 1226( c) ( emphasi s added) . Thus, t he ef f ect of 1226( c)

i s t o deny i ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ngs dur i ng whi ch t he At t or ney

Gener al has t he di scr et i on t o deter mi ne whet her t o det ai n t he

i ndi vi dual . The cent r al i ssue i n t hi s case r el at es t o t he phr ase

when t he al i en i s r el eased.

C.

I n Demore v. Ki m, 538 U. S. 510, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d

t hat 1226( c) s mandat or y det ent i on scheme i s not f aci al l y

- 9-


10/35

unconst i t ut i onal . The al i en i n Demore had been detai ned t he day

af t er hi s rel ease f r omst at e cust ody. Ki mv. Zi gl ar , 276 F. 3d 523,

526 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) . He ar gued t hat 1226( c) vi ol at es due pr ocess

because i t al l ows t he At t or ney Gener al t o det ai n an al i en

i ndef i ni t el y wi t hout a f i ndi ng t hat t he al i en i s danger ous or a

f l i ght r i sk. Demor e, 538 U. S. at 514. The Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed

t hat ar gument , concl udi ng t hat al i ens f al l i ng under 1226( c) may

const i t ut i onal l y be det ai ned f or t he br i ef per i od necessar y f or

t hei r removal pr oceedi ngs. I d. at 513. The Cour t di st i ngui shed

an ear l i er case, Zadvydas v. Davi s, 533 U. S. 678 ( 2001) , whi ch hel d

t hat al i ens whose depor t at i on i s unf easi bl e ( e. g. , because no

count r y wi l l accept t hem) cannot be hel d i ndef i ni t el y unl ess t he

government demonst r at es a cont i nued need f or t hei r det ent i on.

Demor e, 538 U. S. at 528. Whi l e t he per i od of det ent i on at i ssue

i n Zadvydas [ af t er t he st at ut or y deadl i ne f or an al i en s r emoval

has passed] was i ndef i ni t e and pot ent i al l y per manent , t he

det ent i on [ under 1226( c) ] i s of a much shor t er dur at i on. I d.

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . St at i st i cs ci t ed by t he Cour t showed t hat most

r emoval cases were compl et ed i n a f ew mont hs and t he r emai nder , on

average, were compl eted i n j ust f our mont hs more. I d. at 529.

Whi l e t he Cour t s opi ni on i n Demor e di d not ar t i cul at e

l i mi t s on t he per mi ssi bi l i t y of mandat or y det ent i on, J ust i ce

Kennedy i n j oi ni ng t he maj or i t y opi ni on made cl ear t hat i n hi s vi ew

1226( c) shoul d be const r ued i n l i ght of const i t ut i onal concer ns

- 10-


11/35

i f an al i en s det ent i on became unr easonabl e or unj ust i f i ed.

Demor e, 538 U. S. at 532 ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng) . Si nce J ust i ce

Kennedy s vot e was necessary to t he maj or i t y, hi s l i mi t i ng

r at i onal e i s bi ndi ng on us. 4

J ust i ce Kennedy began hi s concur r ence by not i ng t hat ,

si nce mandatory detent i on under 1226( c) i s premi sed upon t he

al i en s depor t abi l i t y, due pr ocess r equi r es i ndi vi dual i zed

pr ocedur es such as a J oseph hear i ng t o ensur e that t he al i en i s i n

f act depor t abl e. I d. At 531- 32 ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng) . For

si mi l ar r easons, he cont i nued, si nce t he Due Process Cl ause

pr ohi bi t s ar bi t r ar y depr i vat i ons of l i ber t y, a l awf ul per manent

r esi dent al i en such as r espondent coul d be ent i t l ed t o an

i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on as t o hi s r i sk of f l i ght and

dangerousness i f t he cont i nued det ent i on became unreasonabl e or

unj ust i f i ed. I d. at 532. Wer e t her e t o be an unr easonabl e del ay

by [ I CE] i n pur sui ng and compl et i ng depor t at i on pr oceedi ngs, i t

coul d become necessary t hen t o i nqui r e whet her t he detent i on i s not

t o f aci l i t at e depor t at i on, or t o pr ot ect agai nst r i sk of f l i ght or

4 See Br uno & St i l l man, I nc. v. Gl obe Newspaper Co. , 633F. 2d 583, 594- 95 ( 1st Ci r . 1980) ( const r ui ng t he Supr eme Cour t s 5-4 deci si on i n Br anzbur g v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 ( 1972) , t o be

l i mi t ed by t he concur r i ng opi ni on of J ust i ce Powel l ) ; accor d, e. g. ,Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 135 F. 3d 963, 968- 69 ( 5t h Ci r . 1998) ; seeal so Uni t ed St at es v. Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, 654 F. 2d 802, 806- 07( D. C. Ci r . 1981) ( gi vi ng si mi l ar t r eat ment t o Nat i onal League ofCi t i es v. User y, 426 U. S. 833 ( 1976) , i n l i ght of J ust i ceBl ackmun s necessary concur r ence) .

- 11-


12/35

danger ousness, but t o i ncar cer at e f or ot her r easons. I d. at 532-

33 ( emphasi s added) .

J ust i ce Kennedy s concur r ence t hus suggest s t hat an

unr easonabl e del ay by [ I CE] i n pur sui ng . . . depor t at i on

pr oceedi ngs coul d make mandat ory det ent i on under subsect i on ( c)

const i t ut i onal l y suspect and r equi r es a l i mi t i ng const r uct i on. We

must det ermi ne her e whet her t he government s year s- l ong del ay means

t hat t he pet i t i oner s ar e ent i t l ed t o an i ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ng

under 1226( a) , or i f t hey ar e subj ect t o mandat or y det ent i on

under 1226( c) .

II.

A.

Lei t i ci a Cast aneda i s a nat i ve and ci t i zen of Br azi l .

Cast aneda ent er ed the Uni t ed St at es wi t hout i nspect i on ( i l l egal l y,

t hat i s) i n 2000. Cast aneda was sevent een year s ol d at t he t i me.

I n 2008, Cast aneda was ar r est ed f or possessi on of cocai ne, a

mi sdemeanor under Massachuset t s l aw and l i st ed pr edi cat e f or

mandat ory det ent i on under 1226( c) . See Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 94C,

34; 8 U. S. C. 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) , 1182( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) ( I I ) ( l i st i ng as

a pr edi cat e f or mandat or y det ent i on a[ ny] vi ol at i on of . . . any

l aw or r egul at i on . . . r el at i ng t o a cont r ol l ed

subst ance . . . . ) . I t i s uncl ear whet her Cast aneda r emai ned i n

pol i ce cust ody or pr et r i al det ent i on af t er her ar r est . On Oct ober

6, 2008, Cast aneda was convi ct ed and r el eased on pr obat i on, f r om

- 12-


13/35

whi ch she was di schar ged i n Febr uary 2010. Si nce her r el ease,

accor di ng to t he Det ent i on Wat ch Network Ami ci Br . at 16- 18,

Cast aneda has begun l i vi ng wi t h her son, has been worki ng as a

ni ght cl eaner , has cooper at ed wi t h pol i ce i n an ef f or t t o pr osecut e

a man who had abused her , and has appl i ed f or a U Vi sa ( a t ype of

vi sa set asi de f or vi ct i ms of cer t ai n cri mes) .

I n Mar ch 2013, f our and a hal f year s af t er her convi ct i on

and r el ease i n 2008, Cast aneda was arr est ed, detai ned, and charged

wi t h removal by I CE agent s. 5 The st at ed ground f or r emoval was

Cast aneda s i nadmi ssi bi l i t y due t o her cocai ne possessi on

convi ct i on. Cast aneda appear s not t o have di sput ed her cr i mi nal

st at us or r emovabi l i t y. She di d, however , seek r el ease on bond f or

t he dur at i on of her r emoval pr oceedi ngs under 1226( a) . An

i mmi gr at i on j udge deni ed her r equest f or r el ease, f i ndi ng t hat she

was subj ect t o mandat ory det ent i on under 1226( c) .

Cast aneda t hen f i l ed a pet i t i on f or wr i t of habeas cor pus

i n t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s. The pet i t i on al l eged t hat

Cast aneda s detent i on wi t hout opport uni t y f or r el ease on bond was

unaut hor i zed by l aw because she was not det ai ned

when . . . r el eased f r om cr i mi nal cust ody as r equi r ed by

5 The s t at ut e provi des t hat Cast aneda s per i od of probat i oni s not t o be consi der ed i n det er mi ni ng her dat e of r el ease. 1226( c) ( 1) ( . . . when t he al i en i s r el eased, wi t hout r egar d t owhet her t he al i en i s r el eased on par ol e, super vi sed r el ease, orprobat i on . . . . ) .

- 13-


14/35

1226( c) . The pet i t i on r equest ed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t or der an

i ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ng and bond r edeter mi nat i on bef or e an

i mmi gr at i on j udge.

Af t er a hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Cast aneda spet i t i on and i ssued a wr i t of habeas cor pus order i ng t he government

t o r el ease Cast aneda unl ess i t pr ovi ded her a bond hear i ng wi t hi n

t en days. The cour t r easoned t hat t he most nat ural r eadi ng of

when r el eased was i mmedi at el y upon r el ease, and t heref ore, i n

l i ght of t he st at ut or y cont ext , st at ut or y st r uctur e, t he r ul e of

l eni t y, and t he absence of congr essi onal i nt ent t o the cont r ar y,

sect i on 1226( c) appl i es onl y to cr i mi nal al i ens who have been

det ai ned i mmedi at el y upon r el ease f r om cr i mi nal cust ody or wi t hi n

a r easonabl e t i me t her eaf t er . A f ew days l at er , pr i or t o t he

schedul ed hear i ng, t he government r el eased Cast aneda on her own

r ecogni zance.

B.

Cl ayton Gor don i s a nat i ve and ci t i zen of J amai ca.

Gor don ar r i ved i n the Uni t ed St at es as a l awf ul per manent r esi dent

i n 1982, at t he age of si x. Bet ween 1994 and 1999, Gor don ser ved

i n t he Nat i onal Guard and on act i ve dut y wi t h t he U. S. Ar my. He

r ecei ved an honorabl e di schar ge i n 1999.

Gor don was ar r est ed i n 2008 af t er pol i ce f ound cocai ne i n

hi s home. He was r el eased f r om cust ody l at er t hat day. He

subsequent l y pl ed gui l t y to possessi on of nar cot i cs wi t h i nt ent t o

- 14-


15/35

sel l , a vi ol at i on of Connecti cut l aw. See Conn. Gen. St at . 21a-

277(a) . On September 30, 2009, Gordon was sent enced t o seven year s

i mpr i sonment , execut i on suspended, wi t h a t hr ee- year pr obat i onar y

t erm. He compl eted hi s pr obat i on i n Oct ober 2012. Si nce 2008, he

has devel oped si gni f i cant t i es t o t he communi t y- - i n 2008, he met

t he woman who has s i nce become hi s f i ance; t hey have a chi l d

t ogether , born i n 2010; t hey own a home i n Bl oomf i el d, Connect i cut ;

he has devel oped a success f ul busi ness; and he has worked on a

pr oj ect t o open a hal f way house f or women r el eased f r om

i ncar cer at i on.

Gordon was ar r est ed and det ai ned by I CE on J une 20, 2013,

mor e t han f our year s af t er hi s rel ease f r om st at e cust ody. The

st at ed basi s f or r emoval was 8 U. S. C. 1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i i ) , whi ch

st at es t han an al i en shal l be depor t abl e i f he i s convi ct ed of any

aggr avat ed f el ony af t er bei ng admi t t ed t o t he Uni t ed St at es.

Gor don chal l enged hi s depor t abi l i t y, but was deni ed r el i ef af t er an

i mmi gr at i on j udge agr eed t hat Gordon s cocai ne convi ct i on was an

aggr avat ed f el ony under 1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i i ) . Thereaf t er , Gor don

was hel d pur suant t o t he mandatory detent i on pr ovi si on wi t hout

opport uni t y f or a bond hear i ng to est abl i sh whether he may be

r el eased dur i ng t he r emoval pr oceedi ngs.

On August 8, 2013, Gor don f i l ed a pet i t i on f or wr i t of

habeas cor pus i n t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s. The pet i t i on

argued t hat he was not subj ect t o t he mandatory detent i on pr ovi si on

- 15-


16/35

because he was not t aken i nto i mmi gr at i on cust ody when . . .

r el eased f r om st at e cr i mi nal cust ody. Gor don sought an

i ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ng at whi ch he coul d est abl i sh hi s

ent i t l ement t o r el ease on bond.Af t er a hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Gor don s

pet i t i on f or wr i t of habeas cor pus, i nst r uct i ng t he gover nment t o

pr ovi de Gordon wi t h a bond hear i ng. The cour t hel d t hat when

r el eased shoul d be i nt er pr et ed t o mean at t he t i me of r el ease,

pl us a r easonabl e t i me t her eaf t er . The cour t r ej ect ed t he i dea

t hat a f i ve year gap was r easonabl e and rej ected t he government s

argument t hat when r el eased i ndi cated t he t i me at whi ch i t can

begi n t o act as f l at l y i mpl ausi bl e. Gor don was gi ven a bond

hear i ng and was r el eased on bond of $25, 000 on November 18, 2013. 6

C.

The government appeal s, and we have j ur i sdi ct i on under 28

U. S. C. 1291. We not e t hat subsect i on 1226( e) pr ohi bi t s j udi ci al

r evi ew of [ t ] he At t or ney Gener al s di scr et i onar y j udgment

r egar di ng t he appl i cat i on of [ 1226] , i ncl udi ng any act i on or

deci si on . . . r egar di ng t he det ent i on or r el ease of any al i en or

t he gr ant , r evocat i on, or deni al of bond or par ol e. 8 U. S. C.

6 Gor don s pet i t i on al so sought cl ass- wi de r el i ef f or al ls i mi l ar l y s i t uat ed i ndi vi dual s, but t hat cl ai m i s not bef or e us.The deci si on on appeal i s t he di st r i ct cour t s grant of Gor don si ndi vi dual pet i t i on. The cl ass- wi de cl ai ms r emai n pendi ng bef or et he di str i ct cour t .

- 16-


17/35

1226( e) . But subsect i on ( e) does not bar our r evi ew of t hi s case

because Cast aneda and Gordon do not chal l enge any di scr et i onary

j udgment of t he At t or ney General ; r at her , t hey chal l enge t he

st at ut or y basi s f or t hei r det ent i on. Habeas pet i t i ons br i ngi ngl egal or const i t ut i onal chal l enges t o an al i en s det ent i on under

1226 ar e not subj ect t o subsect i on ( e) s pr ohi bi t i on of j udi ci al

r evi ew. Syl vai n v. At t or ney Gener al , 714 F. 3d 150, 155 n. 4 ( 3d

Ci r . 2013) ; Si ngh v. Hol der , 638 F. 3d 1196, 1200- 01 ( 9t h Ci r .

2011) ; Al - Si ddi qi v. Achi m, 531 F. 3d 490, 494 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) ;

Demor e, 538 U. S. at 517.

III.

I n t hese appeal s t he gover nment asks f or r ever sal of t he

grant of habeas cor pus t o Cast aneda and Gordon and a det ermi nat i on

t hat t hey ar e subj ect t o mandat or y det ent i on. I n t he gover nment s

vi ew, 1226( c) subj ect s an al i en t o det ent i on wi t hout bai l at any

t i me af t er r el ease, i ncl udi ng year s l at er , and det ent i on can

cont i nue year s af t er r el ease whi l e t he al i en f i ght s r emoval . We

t hi nk the gover nment s vi ew of 1226( c) i s i ncor r ect , and t hat i n

J ust i ce Kennedy s phr ase t he government i n t hese cases has

unr easonabl [ y] del ay[ ed] . . . i n pur sui ng . . . depor t at i on

pr oceedi ngs. Demore, 538 U. S. at 532.

A.

We f i r st addr ess t he meani ng of t he when . . . r el eased

cl ause i n 1226( c) . The government admi t s t hat t hi s l anguage

- 17-


18/35

coul d mean i mmedi at el y af t er r el ease, but cont ends t hat t hi s

l anguage i s ambi guous because i t coul d al so mean any t i me af t er ,

but not bef or e, r el ease. Accor di ng t o t he gover nment , when

r el eased can pl ausi bl e be read t o si gni f [ y] t hat Congr ess di d notwant DHS t o pr eempt st ate and f ederal l aw enf orcement of f i ci al s by

t r yi ng t o t ake cr i mi nal al i ens i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody bef or e t hey

[ c] ompl et ed t hei r t er m of non- DHS cr i mi nal cust ody. . . . Gov t

Gordon Br . 24. The government ar gues t hat Chevr on def erence

r equi r es adopt i ng t hi s const r uct i on. The pet i t i oner s cont end t hat

i t unambi guousl y means i mmedi at el y and no l at er t han 48 hour s.

We t hi nk nei t her i nt er pr et at i on i s cor r ect .

The government s proposed i nt er pret at i on- - at any t i me

af t er r el ease, but not bef or e r el ease- - i s si mpl y i nconsi st ent wi t h

t he pl ai n meani ng of t he t er m when i n t hi s cont ext . To be sur e,

t he t erm when can be used i n di f f erent ways. The Random House

Di ct i onar y of t he Engl i sh Language l i st s t hr ee pot ent i al l y r el evant

senses: at t he t i me or i n t he event t hat , at any t i me t hat ;

whenever , and upon or af t er whi ch; and t hen. Random House

Di ct i onar y of t he Engl i sh Language 1626 ( 1981 ed. ) . See al so

Webst er s Thi r d New I nt er nat i onal Di ct i onar y 2602 ( 1993 ed. )

( l i st i ng f our : at or dur i ng t he t i me t hat , j ust af t er t he moment

t hat , at any and ever y t i me t hat , and i n t he event t hat ) ;

Amer i can Her i t age Di ct i onar y 2032 ( 3d ed. 1992) ( l i st i ng f our : at

t he t i me t hat , as soon as, whenever , and dur i ng the t i me

- 18-


19/35


20/35

( quot i ng Act of Dec. 31, 1792, 14) . I n subsequent sent ences, t he

st at ut e used t he phr ase i n ever y such case or i n ever y case

r epeat edl y. See i d. Chi ef J ust i ce Mar shal l expl ai ned t hat t he

corr ect underst andi ng of t he word when i n t hat st atut e was t hati t descri bes t he occur r ence whi ch shal l r ender [ r e- r egi st r at i on]

necessary, r at her t han desi gnat [ i ng] t he pr eci se t i me when [ r e-

r egi st r at i on] must be per f or med. I d. at 55- 56.

I n cont r ast t o t he st at ut e at i ssue her e, t he st at ut e i n

Wi l l i ngs r epeat edl y empl oyed t he phr ase i n ever y such case,

st r ongl y suggest i ng that when was i nt ended i n t he condi t i onal

sense, r at her t han t he t empor al sense. We t hi nk i t cl ear t hat

1226( c) does not use t he word when i n t he condi t i onal sense, as

i f t o di st i ngui sh bet ween a case wher e t he al i en i s r el eased f r om

st ate cust ody and a case where he i s not . The detent i on and

depor t at i on of an al i en under 1226( c) i s pr emi sed on t he not i on

t hat t he al i en has been r el eased f r om st at e cust ody; t her e i s no

need f or 1226( c) t o speci f y i t . There was no congr essi onal

concer n i n connect i on wi t h subsect i on 1226( c) t hat t he At t or ney

Gener al mi ght det ai n t he al i en bef or e rel ease f r om st at e cust ody.

I ndeed, Congr ess has al r eady pr ovi ded i n 8 U. S. C. 1231( a) ( 4) ( A)

t hat an al i en t ypi cal l y coul d not be det ai ned bef or e r el ease f r om

st at e or f eder al cust ody.

Wi l l i ngs, mor eover , makes cl ear t hat when, used i n t he

condi t i onal sense, means t hat t he speci f i ed act i on must be t aken

- 20-


21/35

wi t hi n a r easonabl e per i od of t i me af t er t he t r i gger i ng event or

condi t i on. I d. at 56 ( r ej ect i ng t hat when means t he pr eci se

t i me, and expl ai ni ng t hat a shi p must be al l owed a reasonabl e

i nt er val of t i me af t er t r ansf er or sal e i n whi ch t o r egi st er ,depend[ i ng] on t he nat ur e of t he case) . Ther e i s no t ext ual

support f or t he government s argument t hat when . . . r el eased

means at any t i me af t er r el ease.

Nor do t he st r uct ur e, pur pose, or l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of

t he st atut e suggest t hat Congr ess cont empl ated aut omat i c

det ent i on s bei ng i mposed year s af t er an al i en s r el ease f r om

cust ody. The 1226( c) cases on whi ch t he government r el i es f or

suppor t mer el y descr i be Congr ess s gener al i zed i nt ent t o det ai n

cr i mi nal al i ens i n or der t o pr ot ect t he communi t y and ensur e swi f t

depor t at i on. See, e. g. , Demor e, 538 U. S. at 518- 21; Syl vai n, 714

F. 3d at 159; Hosh v. Lucer o, 680 F. 3d 375, 381 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) .

But t hi s cour t expl ai ned i n Saysana t hat such gener al i zed

st at ement s of l egi sl at i ve i nt ent pai nt [ ] wi t h f ar t oo br oad a

br ush to be gi ven cont r ol l i ng wei ght i n i nt er pr et i ng 1226. 590

F. 3d at 17. The mandat or y det ent i on pr ovi si on does not r ef l ect a

gener al pol i cy i n f avor of det ent i on; i nst ead, i t out l i nes

speci f i c, ser i ous ci r cumst ances under whi ch t he or di nar y pr ocedur es

f or r el ease on bond at t he di scr et i on of t he i mmi gr at i on j udge

shoul d not appl y. I d. at 17. So t oo her e, we cannot adopt t he

gover nment s i nt er pr et at i on of t he st at ut e j ust because Congr ess

- 21-


22/35

had a gener al concer n f or det ai ni ng cr i mi nal al i ens when . . .

r el eased f r om cust ody.

When the government has del ayed sever al year s bef ore

ar r est i ng an al i en, t he pr esumpt i on of danger ousness and f l i ghtr i sk i s er oded by t he year s i n whi ch t he al i en l i ved peaceabl y i n

t he communi t y. As thi s cour t expl ai ned i n Saysana,

i t i s count er - i nt ui t i ve t o say t hat al i ens wi t hpot ent i al l y l ongst andi ng communi t y t i es ar e, as a cl ass,poor bai l r i sks. The af f ect ed al i ens ar e i ndi vi dual s whocommi t t ed an of f ense, and were rel eased f r omcust ody f ort hat of f ense, more t han a decade ago. They havecont i nued t o l i ve i n t he Uni t ed St at es. By any l ogi c, i t

st ands t o reason t hat t he more remot e i n t i me aconvi ct i on becomes and the more t i me af t er a convi ct i onan i ndi vi dual spends i n a communi t y, t he l ower hi s bai lr i sk i s l i kel y t o be.

590 F. 3d at 17. 7

Fi ndi ng no suppor t i n t he st at ut e s t ext , st r uct ur e,

pur pose, or l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, we r ej ect t he gover nment s

argument t hat when . . . r el eased coul d mean at any t i me af t er

r el ease, but not bef or e r el ease. 8

7 The government cont ends t hat [ u] pon i ni t i at i on ofr emoval pr oceedi ngs, however , t he t hr eat of r emoval becomes r eal ,and t he l i kel i hood t hat a cri mi nal al i en wi l l f l ee t o evadepr oceedi ngs onl y begi ns at t hat moment . Gordon Repl y Br . at 10.Thi s t heory i s specul at i ve and exi st s wi t h r espect t o al ldetai nees, not onl y t o detai nees who have been convi ct ed of apr edi cat e of f ense. Congr ess made no deci si on t o appl y mandatory

det ent i on t o al l det ai nees who become pot ent i al f l i ght r i sks whendet ai ned. Rat her , Congr ess f ocused on t he pr edi cat e of f ense.

8 The government r el i es on I n r e Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. 117( BI A 2001) f or t hi s const r uct i on, cl ai mi ng t hat [ t ] he BI A [ ]r ecogni zed t hat when coul d mean . . . at or af t er t he speci f i edpoi nt i n t i me. Gov t Gordon Br . 17. We do not r ead Roj as as

- 22-


23/35

Thi s l eads us t o t he pet i t i oner s i nt er pret at i on. Whi l e

we r ej ect t he at any t i me af t er i nt er pr et at i on, we al so t hi nk

t hat , cont r ar y t o t he pet i t i oner s, when . . . r el eased does not

mean i mmedi at el y upon r el ease, wi t hout i nt er r upt i on. Not hi ng i nsubsect i on 1226( c) compel s such a r eadi ng of t he phr ase. As t he

di ct i onar i es show, t he t empor al sense of when t ypi cal l y connot es

a degr ee of i mmedi acy. See Amer i can Her i t age, supr a, at 2032

( def i ni ng when as as soon as and gi vi ng t he f ol l owi ng exampl e:

I l l cal l you when I get t her e. ) ; 20 OED, supr a, at 209

( [ s] omet i mes i mpl yi ng suddenness: = and j ust t hen, and at t hat

moment ) ; Webst er s Thi r d, supr a, at 2602 ( j ust af t er t he moment

t hat ) . Thi s i s conf i r med by common usage. One woul d not say

st op wr i t i ng when t he bel l r i ngs t o mean any t i me af t er t he bel l

r i ngs, even hour s l at er . See Webst er s Thi r d, supr a, at 2602

Thus, when i n t hi s cont ext connot es t emporal i mmedi acy. See

Random House, supr a, at 1626; 20 OED, supr a, at 209; Webst er s

Thi r d, supr a, at 2602; Amer i can Her i t age, supr a, at 2032. But ,

what const i t ut es i mmedi acy i s be det ermi ned by cont ext .

I t seems qui t e unl i kel y that Congr ess i nt ended 1226( c)

t o r equi r e t he st r i ct i mmedi acy advocat ed by the pet i t i oner s.

i nt er pr et i ng when t o mean any t i me af t er . Accor d Syl vai n v.At t or ney Gen. , 714 F. 3d 150, 157 n. 9 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) ( The Boar d [ i nRoj as] di d not expl i ci t l y i nt er pr et t he wor d when. I f anyt hi ng,i t suggest ed t hat when denot es i mmedi acy. ) .

- 23-


24/35

Pract i cal l y speaki ng, t he gover nment cannot al ways det ai n cr i mi nal s

at t he pr eci se moment of t hei r r el ease f r omst at e cust ody. For one

t hi ng, such i mmedi at e det ent i on requi r es f or eknowl edge of an

al i en s i mpendi ng r el ease f r om cust ody, f or whi ch t he gover nmentmust depend on t he cooper at i on of st at e and l ocal aut hor i t i es.

Thi s cooper at i on i s of t en l ess t han per f ect . I ndeed, at l east one

st at e adj acent t o t hi s ci r cui t r ecent l y passed l egi sl at i on

cur t ai l i ng i t s cooper at i on wi t h I CE i n det ai ni ng al i ens convi ct ed

of cr i mes. See An Act Concer ni ng Ci vi l I mmi gr at i on Det ai ner s, Pub.

Act No. 13- 155, 1 (Conn. 2013) ( codi f i ed at Conn. Gen. St at .

54- 192h) . The government cr edi bl y argues t hat such act i on has

gr eat pot ent i al t o i mpact I CE s abi l i t y to i dent i f y cr i mi nal

al i ens i n st at e and l ocal cr i mi nal cust ody. Cast aneda Repl y Br .

9 n. 5. I t woul d make l i t t l e sense t o i nt er pr et t he st at ut e t o

st r i ct l y r equi r e i mmedi at e det ent i on i n al l cases, si nce t hat i s an

i mpossi bl e task, as Congr ess r ecogni zed.

Wor ds, l i ke syl l abl es, acqui r e meani ng not i n i sol at i on

but wi t hi n t hei r cont ext . K- Mar t v. Car t i er , 486 U. S. 281, 319

( 1988) ( Scal i a, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) . 9

Based on t he t extual cont ext , we i nt er pr et 1226( c) as r equi r i ng

t hat cr i mi nal al i ens be det ai ned wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me af t er

9 [ Text ] shoul d be const r ued r easonabl y, t o cont ai n al lt hat i t f ai r l y means. Scal i a, J . , A Mat t er of I nt er pr et at i on,( 1997) .

- 24-


25/35

t hei r r el ease f r om st at e cri mi nal cust ody, and t hat what i s a

r easonabl e t i me must account f or t he i nher ent di f f i cul t i es i n

i dent i f yi ng and l ocat i ng an al i en upon r el ease f r om st at e cust ody.

The st at ut e does not t ol er at e unr easonabl e del ays, but nei t her doesi t r equi r e st r i ct i mmedi acy.

As i n Wi l l i ngs, t he r easonabl e t i me wi t hi n whi ch t he

gover nment must det ai n an al i en t o sat i sf y t he when . . .

r el eased cl ause wi l l depend on t he pr act i cal necessi t i es at hand.

Si nce what i s r easonabl e under t he ci r cumst ances i s not def i ned i n

t he st at ut e, we t hi nk t he st at ut e i s ambi guous i n t hat r espect . As

i n ot her cases of st at ut or y ambi gui t y, t he At t or ney Gener al

t her ef or e has consi der abl e l at i t ude t o def i ne what const i t ut es a

r easonabl e t i me under t he Chevr on f r amework.

Under Chevr on, t he i nt erpr etat i on must be a r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on of t he st at ut e. Chevr on, U. S. A. v. Nat ur al Res.

Def . Counci l , I nc. , 467 U. S. 837, 845 ( 1984) . As di scussed above,

when . . . r el eased cannot mean any t i me af t er r el ease. Nor do

we thi nk i t woul d be a r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on t o vi ew a

r easonabl e per i od of t i me as i ncl udi ng a del ay of sever al year s.

As we di scuss bel ow, t he obj ect i ves of t he st at ut e ar e i nappl i cabl e

i n such si t uat i ons and enf or ci ng such det ent i ons woul d be ar bi t r ar y

i n t he ext r eme. We t hi nk i t pl ai n t hat t he pet i t i oner s wer e not

det ai ned wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me af t er t hei r det ent i on, and t hat

- 25-


26/35

t he when . . . r el eased cl ause was not sat i sf i ed her e. 10 Here, as

i n Saysana, t hi s cour t i s not per suaded t hat t he l egi sl at ur e was

seeki ng to j ust i f y mandat ory i mmi gr at i on cust ody many mont hs or

even year s af t er an al i en had been r el eased f r om st at e cust ody.

10 The government s br i ef s f ocus on t he quest i on of whet hert he when . . . r el eased cl ause i s sat i sf i ed by t he det ent i on ofan al i en year s af t er rel ease f r om st at e cust ody. I n t heal t er nat i ve, t he gover nment ar gues t hat par agr aph ( 2) of subsect i on( c) , bar s r el ease of t he al i en r egar dl ess whet her t he al i en wast aken i nt o cust ody pur suant t o par agr aph ( 1) . See 8 U. S. C. 1226( c) ( 2) ( The At t or ney Gener al may r el ease an al i en descr i bed

i n par agr aph ( 1) onl y i f [ nar r ow condi t i ons ar e met ] . ) . Thegovernment argues t hat t he st atut e i s ambi guous i n t hat r espect andt hat we must t her ef or e def er t o t he BI A s deci si on i n Roj as t hatpar agr aph ( 2) wor ks i ndependent l y of par agr aph ( 1) . We r ej ect t hi sar gument because i t i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he l anguage of t hest at ut e. On i t s f ace, par agr aph ( 2) r ef er s t o al i ens t aken i nt ocust ody pur suant t o paragr aph ( 1) . I f Congr ess had want ed t oi ncl ude a pr ovi si on bar r i ng r el ease of any al i en who had commi t t eda pr edi cat e act , Congr ess coul d si mpl y have sai d Any al i endescr i bed i n par agr aphs ( A) t hr ough ( D) . . . . The f act t hatCongress di d not use t he more nat ural and condensed wordi ngsuggest s i t had another pur pose. Congr ess deci si on t o onl y make

1226( c) appl y pr ospect i vel y t o pr edi cat e of f enses commi t t ed af t erenact ment al so ref ut es t he gover nment s const r uct i on.

Mor eover , t hi s cour t al r eady rej ect ed t hat ar gument i nSaysana. I n t hat case, t he i ssue was whet her t he mandatorydet ent i on pr ovi si on appl i es onl y when an al i en i s r el eased f r om acri mi nal cust ody the basi s f or whi ch i s one of t he [ l i st edpr edi cat e of f enses] ; or , [ ] whet her i t appl i es whenever [ such] anal i en . . . i s r el eased f r omany cri mi nal cust ody r egar dl ess of t her eason f or t hat det ent i on. 590 F. 3d at 11. The cour t emphasi zed[ r ] esol ut i on of t hi s i ssue cent er s on t he when r el eased l anguagei n 1226( c) . I d. Saysana t hus r ecogni zed t hat t he when . . .

r el eased l anguage of par agr aph ( 1) i s essent i al t o det er mi ni ngwhet her an al i en i s subj ect t o mandat or y det ent i on. I f par agr aph( 2) oper at ed i ndependent l y of par agr aph ( 1) , as Roj as and t hegovernment woul d have i t , t her e woul d have been no r eason f orSaysana t o consi der t he when . . . r el eased l anguage i n i t sanal ysi s.

- 26-


27/35

Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 16 ( quot i ng Quezada- Buci o v. Ri dge, 317 F.

Supp. 2d 1221, 1230 ( W. D. Wash. 2004) ) . 11

B.

Not wi t hst andi ng our concl usi on that t he

when . . . r el eased r equi r ement was not met here, t he government

cl ai ms suppor t i n a l i ne of Supr eme Cour t cases hol di ng t hat

f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h a st at ut or y deadl i ne di d not depr i ve t he

gover nment of aut hor i t y t o act . See, e. g. , Bar nhar t v. Peabody

Coal Co. , 537 U. S. 149, 158- 63 ( 2003) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mont al vo-

Mur i l l o, 495 U. S. 711, 717- 720 ( 1990) . Those so- cal l ed l oss of

aut hor i t y cases do not support t he gover nment s vi ew t hat al i ens

are subj ect t o mandat ory det ent i on even when t he requi r ement s of

1226( c) are not compl i ed wi t h.

I n our vi ew, t hose l oss of aut hor i t y cases f al l i nt o t wo

di scr et e cat egor i es. On t he one hand t her e ar e cases t hat i nvol ve

housekeepi ng pr ovi si ons- - t hat i s, t i me l i mi t at i ons t hat ar e

pr ocedur al , hor at or y, advi sor y, or pr ecat or y, and ar e desi gned t o

r egul at e t he f unct i oni ng of t he gover nment and spur t he

gover nment i nt o act i on ( see Br ock v. Pi er ce Cnt y. 476 U. S. 253, 265

11 We do not r ead Hosh or Syl vai n as comi ng t o a cont r aryconcl usi on. Hosh onl y addressed whet her when meant i mmedi at el y,

and, as we do t oday, hel d t hat when, i n t hi s cont ext , does notr equi r e st r i ct i mmedi acy. Hosh never st at ed t hat when i s anent i r el y open- ended t i me per i od; i ndeed, t he cour t acknowl edgedt hat t he st at ut e connot es some degr ee of i mmedi acy. Hosh, 680F. 3d at 381. Syl vai n f ai l ed t o even addr ess t he meani ng of when. Syl vai n, 714 F. 3d at 157.

- 27-


28/35

( 1986) ) , r at her t han t o conf er r i ght s on r egul at ed par t i es. An

exampl e of such a case i s Barnhart , where t he Cour t hel d t hat t he

Commi ssi oner of Soci al Secur i t y r et ai ned aut hor i t y t o take cer t ai n

act i ons under t he Coal I ndust r y Ret i r ee Heal t h Benef i t Act despi t ef ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he st at ut or y deadl i ne. 537 U. S. at 158- 63.

Si mi l ar l y, i n Br ock, t he Cour t uphel d t he Secret ar y of Labor s

aut hor i t y t o or der t he r epayment of mi sused gr ant f unds even though

t he audi t t hat l ed t o t he r epayment order was not compl eted wi t hi n

t he t i me gi ven by t he st at ut e. 476 U. S. at 266. The gener al r ul e

i n such cases i s t hat , i f a st at ut e does not speci f y a consequence

f or noncompl i ance wi t h st at ut or y t i mi ng pr ovi si ons, t he f eder al

cour t s wi l l not i n t he or di nar y cour se i mpose t hei r own coer ci ve

sanct i on. Uni t ed St at es v. J ames Dani el Good Real Proper t y, 510

U. S. 43, 63 ( 1993) .

On t he ot her hand, t her e i s anot her cat egor y of cases

such as Mont al vo- Mur i l l o, i n whi ch t he st at ut e i s not a

housekeepi ng pr ovi si on but i s r at her desi gned t o pr ot ect t he r i ght s

of i ndi vi dual s. I n such ci r cumst ances a more nuanced appr oach i s

r equi r ed. 12

12 See Fr ench v. Edwards, 80 U. S. 506, 511 ( 1871) , whi chexpl ai ned that pr ovi si ons desi gned t o secur e or der , syst em, and

di spat ch pr oceedi ngs ar e not usual l y r egarded as mandatory unl essaccompani ed by negat i ve words, [ b] ut when t he r equi si t i onspr escr i bed ar e i nt ended f or t he pr ot ect i on of t he ci t i zen, andt hat a di sr egar d of whi ch hi s r i ght s mi ght be and gener al l y woul dbe i nj ur i ousl y af f ect ed, t he pr ovi si ons ar e not di r ect or y butmandatory. I d.

- 28-


29/35

We f i r st addr ess whet her t hi s st at ut e f al l s i n t he

housekeepi ng cat egor y. Two other ci r cui t s have concl uded t hat i t

does, and t her ef or e r ul ed t hat al i ens such as t he pet i t i oner s wer e

subj ect t o mandat ory det ent i on despi t e years- l ong del ays by t hegover nment . See Syl vai n, 714 F. 3d at 159 ( [ T] he mandat ory-

det ent i on st at ut e i s i nt ended t o pr ot ect onl y t he publ i c . . . . ) ;

Hosh, 680 F. 3d at 382 ( [ Sect i on] 1226 was undeni abl y not wr i t t en

f or t he benef i t of cri mi nal al i ens f aci ng depor t at i on l i ke Hosh.

( emphasi s r emoved) ) . We di sagr ee.

I n determi ni ng t he congr essi onal pur pose behi nd 1226( c)

we must consi der not onl y t he pr ovi si on s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y

( whi ch admi t t edl y does not suggest a pur pose to benef i t al i en

det ai nees) but al so const i t ut i onal consi der at i ons. We t hi nk t he

when . . . r el eased cl ause must be const r ued as benef i t t i ng

al i ens det ai ned year s af t er r el ease i n or der t o avoi d

const i t ut i onal doubt s. Avoi dance of const i t ut i onal doubt i s a

car di nal pr i nci pl e of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on. Zadvydas, 533

U. S. at 689 ( quot i ng Cr owel l v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62, ( 1932)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . As t he Supr eme Cour t has

expl ai ned count l ess t i mes, when an Act of Congr ess r ai ses a

ser i ous doubt as to i t s const i t ut i onal i t y, t hi s Cour t wi l l f i r st

ascer t ai n whet her a const r uct i on of t he st at ut e i s f ai r l y possi bl e

by whi ch t he quest i on may be avoi ded. I d. ( quot i ng Cr owel l , 285

U. S. at 62 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Thi s obl i gat i on

- 29-


30/35

r equi r es us t o at t empt t o f i nd a const i t ut i onal pur pose as wel l as

a const i t ut i onal const r uct i on of t he wor ds of t he st at ut e. SKF

USA, I nc. v. U. S. Cust oms and Border Protect i on, 556 F. 3d 1337,

1353 ( Fed. Ci r . 2009) . We f ol l ow t hat gui dance her e.J ust i ce Kennedy caut i oned i n Demor e t hat , si nce t he Due

Pr ocess Cl ause pr ohi bi t s ar bi t r ar y depr i vat i ons of l i ber t y, a

l awf ul per manent r esi dent al i en . . . coul d be ent i t l ed t o an

i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on as t o hi s r i sk of f l i ght and

dangerousness i f t he cont i nued det ent i on became unreasonabl e or

unj ust i f i ed. 538 U. S. at 532 ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng) . He

cont i nued: Were t here t o be an unr easonabl e del ay by [ I CE] i n

pur sui ng and compl et i ng deport at i on pr oceedi ngs, i t coul d become

necessary t hen t o i nqui r e whet her t he det ent i on i s not t o

f aci l i t at e depor t at i on, or t o pr ot ect agai nst r i sk of f l i ght or

danger ousness, but t o i ncar cer at e f or other r easons. I d. 13 As a

const i t ut i onal mat t er , mandat or y det ent i on can onl y be j ust i f i ed by

t he pr esumpt i on of dangerousness and f l i ght r i sk posed by newl y

r el eased cr i mi nal def endant s. But t hose who have r esi ded i n t he

communi t y f or year s af t er r el ease cannot r easonabl y be pr esumed

ei t her t o be danger ous or f l i ght r i sks. Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y so

13 Whi l e J ust i ce Kennedy s concer ns wer e l i mi t ed t o t he caseof a l awf ul per manent r esi dent al i en, i d. at 532, whi ch Cast anedai s not , we do not i nt er pr et t he mandat or y det ent i on pr ovi si ondi f f er ent l y as t o her or ot her unl awf ul or non- per manent r esi dental i ens. The t ext of t he st at ut e pr ovi des no basi s f or such adi s t i nct i on.

- 30-


31/35

gi ven t he br eadt h of of f enses t o whi ch 1226( c) appl i es, and t he

i ncl usi on of of f enses such as non- vi ol ent dr ug possessi on.

Mandat or y det ent i on of such i ndi vi dual s year s af t er r el ease f or

such cr i mes r ai ses ser i ous const i t ut i onal quest i ons. Thegover nment acknowl edged at or al ar gument t he har sh consequences of

upr oot i ng t hese i ndi vi dual s f r om t he communi t y, a f eat ur e whi ch

onl y under scor es t he ar bi t r ar y nat ur e of t he det ent i on. 14

Despi t e i t s year s- l ong del ay i n br i ngi ng r emoval

pr oceedi ngs af t er t he pet i t i oner s r el ease f r om cr i mi nal cust ody,

t he gover nment has of f er ed no expl anat i on f or ei t her t he del ay or

t he event ual deci si on t o pr osecut e i n t hese i ndi vi dual cases or ,

f or t hat mat t er , i n t he ot her cases wher e i ndi vi dual s have been

det ai ned year s af t er r el ease. I ndeed, when t he di st r i ct cour t

ordered t hat t he pet i t i oners be gi ven bond hear i ngs, t he government

r el eased each one, t her eby i ndi cat i ng t hat t he gover nment act ual l y

vi ewed t hemas nei t her danger ous nor l i kel y t o f l ee. Cast aneda was

even r el eased on her own r ecogni zance ( i . e. , wi t hout a monetary

bond) and bef ore her bond hear i ng even t ook pl ace.

Mandat or y det ent i on of i ndi vi dual s such as t he

pet i t i oner s appear s ar bi t r ar y on i t s f ace. We ar e l ef t t o wonder

14 We al so not e ot her ci r cui t s have r ai sed si gni f i cantconst i t ut i onal concer ns associ at ed wi t h ar bi t r ar y appl i cat i on oft he st at ut e wher e l ong- t er m det ent i on occur s and have const r ued1226( c) as not appl yi ng i n such ci r cumst ances. See Casas-Cast r i l l on v. Dept . of Homel and Sec. , 535 F. 3d 942, 950 ( 9t h Ci r .2008) ; Ly v. Hansen, 351 F. 3d 263, 272 ( 6t h Ci r . 2003) .

- 31-


32/35

whet her t he pet i t i oner s sudden ar r est and det ent i on i s not t o

f aci l i t at e depor t at i on, or t o pr ot ect agai nst r i sk of f l i ght or

danger ousness, but t o i ncar cer at e f or ot her r easons, whi ch woul d

of f end due pr ocess. Zadvydas, 533 U. S. at 690. Under t heseci r cumst ances, we t hi nk 1226( c) must be i nt erpr eted as desi gned

t o benef i t al i en det ai nees who wer e det ai ned year s af t er r el ease

f r om cr i mi nal cust ody i n or der t o avoi d const i t ut i onal concer ns.

The government ar gues t hat even i f 1226( c) i s not a

housekeepi ng pr ovi si on, but i nst ead i s r ead t o benef i t al i ens who

wer e r el eased year s ear l i er , Mont al vo- Mur i l l o suppor t s i t s

posi t i on. Ther e, t he Supr eme Cour t addr essed t he Bai l Ref ormAct s

r equi r ement t hat a suspect hel d i n pr et r i al cust ody must be gi ven

a bai l hear i ng i mmedi at el y upon t he per son s f i r st appear ance, a

pr ovi si on desi gned t o pr ot ect t he r i ght s of cr i mi nal def endant s.

495 U. S. at 714 ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 3142( f ) ( 1988) ) . The Supr eme

Cour t never t hel ess concl uded t hat t he f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de an

i mmedi ate bai l hear i ng di d not depr i ve t he government of al l

aut hor i t y t o hol d t he def endant . The Cour t expr essed concer n t hat ,

i n or der i ng t he suspect s r el ease, t he l ower cour t s had

i nvent [ ed] a r emedy unsupport ed by t he st at ut or y t ext : Nei t her

t he t i mi ng r equi r ement s nor any ot her part of t he Act can be r ead

t o r equi r e, or even suggest , t hat a t i mi ng er r or must r esul t i n

r el ease of a per son who shoul d ot her wi se be det ai ned. I d. at 716-

17, 721. Even i f some r emedy were r equi r ed, t he Cour t expl ai ned,

- 32-


33/35

[ w] e need seek onl y a pr act i cal r emedy, not one t hat st r i ps t he

Gover nment of al l aut hor i t y t o act . I d. at 719. When, as her e,

t her e ar e l ess dr ast i c remedi es avai l abl e f or f ai l ur e t o meet a

st at ut or y deadl i ne, cour t s shoul d not assume that Congr ess i nt endedt he agency t o l ose i t s power t o act . I d. at 718 ( quot i ng Br ock,

476 U. S. at 260 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

The cases bef or e us st and i n st ar k cont r ast t o Mont al vo-

Mur i l l o, and t he absence of t he f act or s t he Cour t f ound compel l i ng

t her e di ctat es t he opposi t e r esul t her e. Fi r st , t he di st r i ct

cour t s her e di d not i nvent a remedy unsupport ed by t he st atut e s

t ext . Rat her , t he gr ant of l i mi t ed habeas r el i ef r equi r i ng a bond

hear i ng r ef l ect ed t he st r uct ur e of t he det ent i on pr ovi si ons as a

whol e. Mandat or y det ent i on under subsect i on ( c) i s an except i on;

gener al det ent i on under subsect i on ( a) i s the def aul t r ul e. See

1226( a) ( Except as pr ovi ded i n subsecti on ( c) . . . . ) . I f

subsect i on ( c) does not appl y, i t f ol l ows nat ur al l y that subsect i on

( a) does, and t hat t he pet i t i oners must be gi ven a bond hear i ng.

So unl i ke i n Mont al vo- Mur i l l o, t he remedy her e comport s wi t h t he

t ext and st r uct ur e of t he st at ut e.

Second, unl i ke Mont al vo- Mur i l l o, t he di st r i ct cour t

deci si ons her e di d not st r i p t he At t or ney Gener al of aut hor i t y to

det ai n t he pet i t i oners. Under sect i on 1226( a) t he At t orney Gener al

has br oad and unr evi ewabl e di scr et i on t o det ermi ne whet her

i ndi vi dual al i ens shoul d be af f or ded r el ease on bond. 8 U. S. C.

- 33-


34/35

1226( a) ( 1) - ( 2) ( st at i ng t hat t he At t or ney Gener al may cont i nue

t o det ai n t he ar r est ed al i en and may rel ease t he al i en on bond

or par ol e, but pl aci ng no const r ai nt s on t he At t or ney Gener al s

deci si on) ; i d 1226( e) (pr ohi bi t i ng j udi ci al r evi ew) . I nexer ci si ng t hi s di scr et i on, t he At t or ney Gener al may adopt any

r egul at i on t hat has a r easonabl e f oundat i on, meani ng t hat i t

r at i onal l y pur sues a pur pose t hat i t i s l awf ul . . . t o seek.

Reno v. Fl or es, 507 U. S. 292, 309 ( 1993) ( quot i ng Car l son v.

Landon, 342 U. S. 524, 541 ( 1952) ) . The gr ant of habeas r el i ef i n

t hese cases merel y f orced t he At t orney General t o consi der

r el easi ng t he pet i t i oner s. He r et ai ned f ul l aut hor i t y t o decl i ne.

Thi r d, unl i ke Mont al vo- Mur i l l o, t he r emedy here i s not

dr ast i c. The l ower cour t s i n Mont al vo- Mur i l l o mandat [ ed] r el ease

of possi bl y danger ous def endant s. Mont al vo- Mur i l l o, 495 U. S. at

720. The di st r i ct cour t s her e di d no such t hi ng. They di d not

or der t he pet i t i oner s r el ease; t hey or der ed t hat t he pet i t i oner s

be gi ven a hear i ng at whi ch t he government has di scr et i on t o

cont i nue t hei r det ent i on i f i t f i nds t hem danger ous or a f l i ght

r i sk. I t was t he gover nment i t sel f t hat det er mi ned t o r el ease

Cast aneda and Gor don.

I n l i ght of t hese si gni f i cant di f f er ences, we t hi nk t hat

Mont al vo- Mur i l l o does not appl y her e, and t hat vi ol at i ng t he

command of t he st at ut e f or det ent i on when . . . r el eased i s

pr oper l y enf or ced by r equi r i ng an i ndi vi dual i zed hear i ng.

- 34-


35/35

IV.

Sect i on 1226( c) r equi r es det ent i on of al i ens such as t he

pet i t i oner s when . . . r el eased. Because t he pet i t i oner s wer e

not t i mel y det ai ned under any reasonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he

st at ut e, we concl ude t hat t he pet i t i oner s ar e not subj ect t o

mandatory detent i on under 1226( c) . They are not subj ect t o an

i r r ebut t abl e pr esumpt i on of danger ousness and f l i ght r i sk, but ar e

r at her ent i t l ed t o an i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on by the At t or ney

Gener al of such f act or s. We t her ef or e af f i r m t he deci si ons of t he

di st r i ct cour t s gr ant i ng habeas r el i ef t o t he pet i t i oner s. 15

AFFIRMED

Cost s t o appel l ees.

15 We not e i n concl usi on t hat many di st r i ct cour t s acr osst he count r y have adopt ed t he i nt er pr et at i on of 1226( c) t hat weadopt t oday. See, e. g. , Al i khani v. Fasano, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1124,1130 ( S. D. Cal . 1999) ; Or t i z v. Hol der , No. 2: 11- cv- 1146 DAK, 2012WL 893154, at *3- 4 ( D. Ut ah Mar . 14 2012) ; Harr i s v. Lucer o, Ci vi l

Act i on No. 1: 11- cv- 692, 2012 WL 603949, at *3 ( E. D. Va. Feb 23,2012) ; Par f ai t v. Hol der , Ci vi l No. 11- 4877 ( DMC) , 2011 WL 4829391,at *4- 9 ( D. N. J . Oct . 11, 2011) ; Ri ant o v. Hol der , No. CV- 11- 0137-PHX- FJ M, 2011 WL 3489613, at *3 (D. Ar i z. Aug. 9, 2011) . I ndeed,t hat i nt er pr et at i on appear s to be t he maj or i t y vi ew. See Syl vai n,714 F. 3d at 157 ( col l ect i ng cases) .

35

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Castaneda v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents