FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL PADILLA-RAMIREZ, No. 16-35385 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 1:16-cv-00127- BLW DANIEL A. BIBLE; JEH CHARLES JOHNSON; JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; RICK LAYHER, AMENDED Defendants-Appellees. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 13, 2017 San Francisco, California Filed July 6, 2017 Amended February 15, 2018 Before: J. Clifford Wallace, M. Margaret McKeown, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Wallace 2 PADILLA-RAMIREZ V. BIBLE SUMMARY* Immigration / Habeas Corpus The panel amended an opinion affirming the district court’s judgment denying Raul Padilla-Ramirez’s habeas corpus petition, in which he sought a custody redetermination as he awaits the outcome of administrative proceedings to determine whether he has a reasonable fear of returning to his native country of El Salvador. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) grants the Attorney General discretion to detain an alien pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States, and permits the Attorney General to release the alien on bond or conditional parole. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1), an initial custody determination under section 1226(a) is made by the district director, but the detainee may request an additional bond hearing before an immigration judge. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) provides for mandatory detention during a ninety-day removal period, and discretionary detention beyond the removal period in certain circumstances. However, the bond hearing authorized under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1) does not apply to detentions authorized under section 1231(a). Padilla-Ramirez’s entitlement to a bond hearing hinged on whether he is detained pursuant to section 1226(a) or section 1231(a). The panel held that reinstated removal orders are administratively final for detention purposes, and that the detention of aliens subject to reinstated removal * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. PADILLA-RAMIREZ V. BIBLE 3 orders is governed by section 1231(a), rather than section 1226(a). Padilla-Ramirez was therefore not entitled to a bond hearing. The panel noted that its decision creates a circuit split with the Second Circuit’s decision in Guerra v. Shanahan, 831 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2016). COUNSEL Maria E. Andrade (argued), Benjamin E. Stein (argued), and Christine M. Meeuwsen, Andrade Legal, Boise, Idaho; Matt Adams and Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Brian C. Ward (argued), Trial Attorney; Gisela A. Westwater, Assistant Director; William C. Peachey, Director; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; District Court Section, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants- Appellees. Marc Van Der Hout and Amalia Wille, Van Der Hout Brigagliano & Nightingale LLP, San Francisco, California; Trina Realmuto, National Immigration Project fo the National Lawyers Guild, Boston, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Detention Watch Network, Dolores Street Community Services, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals