Bahena v. Aitken et al

Filing 11

ORDER SUPPLEMENTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS in Light of Intervening Case Law 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/20/17: 21-Day Objection Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AHUIZOTL MENDOZA BAHENA, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 16 No. 1:17-cv-00145-DAD-JLT (HC) ORDER SUPPLEMENTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN LIGHT OF INTERVENING CASE LAW v. (Doc. 9) TIMOTHY AITKEN, et al., 21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner is currently detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 19 (ICE) in “withholding-only” proceedings following a final order of removal. On June 28, 2017, 20 the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendation to grant in part and deny in part the 21 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the undersigned recommended that Petitioner’s 22 request for immediate release be denied, but Respondents be ordered to provide Petitioner with a 23 bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. (Doc. No. 9.) This Findings and Recommendation 24 was served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 25 twenty-one days from the date of service of that order. 26 On July 14, 2017, Respondents filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 27 (Doc. No. 10.) Respondents note that subsequent to the issuance of the Findings and 28 Recommendation, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, No. 16-35385, 1 1 2017 WL 2871513 (9th Cir. 2017). Respondents claim that Padilla-Ramirez bears directly on the 2 issues presented here. Respondents argue that Padilla-Ramirez holds that detainees such as the 3 petitioner who are in withholding-only proceedings are detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) 4 and are therefore not entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. Respondents claim 5 that the Findings and Recommendation is now contrary to Ninth Circuit precedent. The Court 6 does not find Respondents’ arguments persuasive. 7 As Respondents correctly state, Padilla-Ramirez answered the question as to which statute 8 governed the detention of individuals in withholding-only proceedings. As Respondents had 9 argued and as was determined in the Findings and Recommendation, the correct statute is 8 10 U.S.C. § 1231(a). Id. at *4. However, Padilla-Ramirez does not address the specific issue here: 11 whether the petitioner, who has been subjected to prolonged detention, is entitled to a bond 12 hearing. 13 In Padilla-Ramirez, the petitioner requested a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge 14 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1). Section 236.1 of Title of the Code of Federal Regulations 15 governs the detention of aliens prior to an order of removal, and among other things, provides for 16 bond hearings. However, as noted in Padilla-Ramirez, “[t]he bond hearing authorized under 8 17 C.F.R. § 236.1 does not apply to detentions authorized under section 1231(a).” 2017 WL 18 2871513, *2. Since Padilla-Ramirez was detained pursuant to § 1231(a), and not § 1226(a), the 19 Ninth Circuit rejected his request for a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Id. The appellate court 20 specifically limited its decision to “only address[] Padilla-Ramirez’s entitlement to an initial bond 21 hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1.” Id. The Ninth Circuit stated that its decision did “not address 22 Padilla-Ramirez’s entitlement to a bond hearing after prolonged detention.” Id. The court 23 reaffirmed its decision in Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (Diouf II), that 24 “’individuals detained under § 1231(a)(6) are entitled to the same procedural safeguards against 25 prolonged detention as individuals detained under § 1226(a).’” Padilla-Ramirez, 2017 WL 26 2871513, *2 (quoting Diouf II, 634 F.3d at 1084). 27 28 Unlike Padilla-Ramirez, Petitioner is not seeking a bond hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1. Rather, as discussed in the Findings and Recommendation, he is subject to a final order of 2 1 removal and has been detained for over a year beyond the 90-day removal period. Accordingly, 2 he is detained under § 1231(a)(6) pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security’s 3 discretionary authority. Following other courts in the circuit, and for the reasons set forth in the 4 Findings and Recommendation of June 28, 2017, the Court continues to recommend that 5 Petitioner be given a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, and unless the government 6 establishes that he poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community, he be released from 7 detention. See Herrera v. United States Attorney Gen., 2017 WL 2963569, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 8 11, 2017), report and recommendation adopted sub nom., Ana Silvia Cortes Herrera v. United 9 States Attorney Gen., 2017 WL 2957798 (D. Ariz. July 11, 2017) (holding that detainee who had 10 been subject to detention longer than six months was entitled to bond hearing); Guardado- 11 Quevara v. Lynch, 2016 WL 4136547, at * 4 (D. Ariz. June 27, 2016), report and 12 recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4074113 (D. Ariz. August 1, 2016) (concluding that 13 petitioner in withholding proceedings was entitled to a bond hearing); Gonzalez v. Asher, 2016 14 WL 871073, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 16, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 15 865351 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 7, 2016) (finding that petitioner “is entitled to a bond hearing under 16 either § 1226(a) or § 1231(a)” under Diouf II because he “has been detained by ICE for more than 17 six months and his detention is likely to continue until his withholding-only proceedings are 18 concluded”); Acevedo-Rojas v. Clark, 2014 WL 6908540, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 8, 2014) 19 (concluding that a petitioner with a reinstated removal order and in withholding proceedings was 20 detained under § 1231(a) detention and was entitled to bond hearing at six months as required by 21 Diouf II); Giron-Castro v. Asher, 2014 WL 8397147, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 2, 2014) (same). 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 2 ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Findings and Recommendation issued on June 28, 2017, is 3 SUPPLEMENTED. The Court makes the same recommendation: 1) that the petition be 4 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 2) that Respondents’ motion to dismiss be 5 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 3) that an order of release be DENIED 6 WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 4) that Respondents be required to provide Petitioner with a bond 7 hearing before an Immigration Judge. 8 Within twenty-one days after being served with a copy of this Findings and 9 Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all 10 parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 11 Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten court days (plus 12 three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the 13 Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 14 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the 15 District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?