LEZAMA v. AVILES et al
Filing
4
OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 5/16/2013. (nr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
JAMIE A. LEZAMA,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
Civil Action No. 13-2059 (SDW)
v.
:
:
OPINION
OSCAR AVILES et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
______________________________:
On April 1, 2013, Petitioner Jamie A. Lezama (“Petitioner”), then a pre-removalorder alien detainee, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging Petitioner’s detention. See Docket Entry No. 1. Petitioner
asserted that he was being unlawfully held in custody as a result of Respondents’
erroneous interpretation of the mandatory detention provision contained in § 236(c) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
On April 10, 2013, this Court issued an order and accompanying opinion staying
this matter in light of Hosh v. Lucero, 680 F.3d 375, 384 (4th Cir. 2012) (concluding
“that the BIA’s interpretation of § 1226(c) . . . was reasonable, and must be accorded
deference”), and analogous prior proceedings in this District finding the challenge
fostered by Petitioner without merit. See, e.g., Espinoza-Loor v. Holder, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 91307 (D.N.J. July 2, 2012); Diaz v. Muller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85971
(D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2011); Desrosiers v. Hendricks, No. 11-4643, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
154971 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011). Noting that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
was about to offer conclusive guidance as to the proper interpretation of § 1226(c) in
Sylvain v. Holder, U.S.C.A. Index No. 11-3357 (3d Cir. docketed Aug. 31, 2011), this
Court stayed this matter so to allow Petitioner an opportunity to: (a) assess the Court of
Appeals’ decision, once it was entered; and (b) file an amended § 2241 petition if
Petitioner so elected.
On April 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals resolved the issue at bar, holding that,
even if 8 U.S.C.S. § 1226(c)(1) called for detention when an alien was released, nothing
in the statute suggested that the immigration officials would lose their authority to
effectuate the removal proceeding and mandatorily detain the alien if they delayed. See
Sylvain v. AG of the United States, -- F.3d --, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7937 (3d Cir. Apr.
22, 2013). The Court of Appeals, therefore, ruled that an alien raising the claim fostered
here was not entitled to habeas relief simply because the alien asserted that the
immigration officials delayed taking him/her into custody. See id.
Correspondingly, as stated in the Petition, Petitioner’s challenge is without merit.
However, this Court cannot rule out that Petitioner might have envisioned a claim
somewhat different from that resolved in Sylvain or, in the alternative, that Petitioner’s
circumstances so changed as to provide a basis for an alternative habeas claim.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice to Petitioner raising his
habeas challenges not precluded by Sylvain in a new and separate § 2241 petition.
An appropriate Order follows.
s/Susan D. Wigenton________
SUSAN D. WIGENTON,
United States District Judge
Dated: May 16, 2013
2
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?