LUBIN v. GREEN

Filing 6

OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/8/16. (DD, ) N/M

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NEWARK VICINAGE

CARSON E. LUBIN,
Petitioner,
v.
CHARLES GREEN,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 16-76(SRC)

OPINION

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Carson E.
Lubin’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner has been in
detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (detention of a criminal
alien pending removal proceedings) since May 30, 2013. (Id.)
Respondent filed a letter response asserting that Respondent does
not object to the Court entering an order remanding this matter to
the

Immigration

Court

for

a

bond

hearing

under

8

C.F.R.

§

1003.19(c). (Letter Response, ECF No. 3.)
In reply, Petitioner asserts that he never received a bond
hearing, but the Immigration Judge erred by alleging Petitioner
was a danger to the community. (Traverse to Resp’t Opp. to Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Traverse”), ECF No. 5.) Petitioner appears to be
1

referring to the Immigration Court’s denial of his application for
asylum on May 5, 2016. (Id. at 1-2.) Petitioner requests that this
Court

conduct

the

individualized

bond

hearing

and

order

his

release. (Id. at 2-3.)
Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to ChavezAlvarez v. Warden York County Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 478 (3d Cir.
2015) (holding that the Due Process Clause limits the Government’s
authority to detain an alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without a
bond hearing because, as the length of detention grows, the burden
on the alien’s liberty outweighs any justification for detention
without consideration of bond.) The appropriate relief is to order
a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. See Chavez-Alvarez,
783 F.3d at 477 n. 12 (“[w]e read 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(c) as giving
the Immigration Judge jurisdiction to rule on the bond issue”);
see Reeves v. Johnson, Civ. Action No. 15-1962(SRC), 2015 WL
1383942,

at

*3

(D.N.J.

Mar.

24,

2015)

(citing

Pisciotta

v.

Ashcroft, 311 F. Supp. 2d 445, 454 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2004) (district
court

does

not

have

jurisdiction

over

discretionary

agency

decisions such as whether to release a petitioner on bond.))
appropriate Order follows.

2

An

DATED: July 8, 2016

s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge

3