Manu v. Shanahan et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Because Petitioner's detention period has not exceeded the six-month period established in Lora, and he has not asserted any other basis for the relief sought, the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/30/2016) (kko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
OWUSU MANU,
:
:
:
Petitioner, :
:
-v:
:
CHRISTOPHER SHANAHAN, DIANE
:
MCCONNELL, JEH JOHNSON, LORETTA :
LYNCH, and TISH NALLS-CASTILLO
:
:
Respondents. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------- :X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 09/30/2016

1:16-cv-7581-GHW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
On September 22, 2016, Petitioner, Mr. Owusu Manu, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner has been detained by
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) without bond for approximately four
months, and seeks a bail hearing in light of his detention. Because Mr. Manu does not present a
basis for the Court to conclude that his current detention violates the law, the Petition is DENIED
without prejudice.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ghana. Pet. ¶ 26. Following an incident involving his tribe,

Petitioner asserts that tribal elders determined that he must be executed and “sacrificed in order to
appease ancestral spirits.” Id. Fearing for his life, Petitioner fled Ghana and eventually sought
asylum in the United States. Id. On May 31, 2016, Petitioner presented himself to the U.S. Customs
and Border Patrol in Texas. Pet. ¶ 11. Petitioner was detained promptly thereafter and was placed
in removal proceedings in New York. Id. ¶¶ 2, 11.
On July 5, 2016, an asylum officer determined that Petitioner had established credible fear of

torture. Id. ¶ 27. Approximately one month later, Petitioner’s counsel filed a humanitarian parole
request with ICE, which ICE denied on August 24, 2016. Id. Petitioner submitted his application
for asylum on September 27, 2016, and the immigration judge scheduled a hearing on the merits of
Petitioner’s application for December 13, 2016. Id. ¶ 28. Petitioner is currently detained in New
Jersey awaiting the December 13, 2016 hearing. Id. ¶ 11.
II.

DISCUSSION
The Petition’s claim for relief relies exclusively on the Second Circuit’s decision in Lora v.

Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2015). Petitioner’s sole argument is that his due process rights have
been violated because his “detention will extend a minimum of six months and likely significantly
longer.” Id. ¶ 6 (emphasis added). He has not suggested any other basis to justify the requested
relief.
In Lora, the Second Circuit held that “in order to avoid the constitutional concerns raised by
indefinite detention, an immigrant detained pursuant to [8 U.S.C. §] 1226(c) must be afforded a bail
hearing before an immigration judge within six months of his or her detention.” 804 F.3d at 616.
The Second Circuit elected to adopt this “bright-line rule . . . in order to avoid the constitutional
concerns raised by indefinite detention.” Id. The holding of Lora is limited to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); by
its terms, the decision does not extend to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), the statute pursuant to which
Petitioner is detained. The Court need not assess whether the holding of Lora should be expanded
as suggested by Petitioner.1 For purposes of this decision only, the Court assumes, without holding,
that Lora applies with equal force to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).

The Court is aware of Judge Abrams’s recent decision in Arias v. Aviles, concluding that “the Second Circuit’s decision
in Lora dictates that the Court interpret 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to include a reasonable temporal limitation of six
months on . . . detention.” No. 15-CV-9249 (RA), 2016 WL 3906738, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2016). However, the
Second Circuit has not had an opportunity to address this question, and courts in this district have reached different
conclusions on the issue. See, e.g., Cardona v. Nalls-Castillo, No. 15-CV-9866 (SAS), 2016 WL 1553430 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14,
2016) (concluding that Lora “does not extend to individuals detained under Section 1225(b)”). The Court takes no
position regarding the applicability of the Second Circuit’s decision in Lora to individuals detained pursuant to
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) and need not decide that issue at this juncture.

1

2

Assuming that the six-month limitations on detentions without a bond hearing established in
Lora applies here, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to relief. His detention has not
yet exceeded six months—he is two months shy of that mark. Therefore, as of the date of the
Petition—and this order—Petitioner has not presented the Court with a basis for relief. The Court
recognizes that Petitioner’s next immigration court hearing is scheduled to take place on a date that
exceeds the six-month mark by approximately 13 days, but the possibility of future harm does not
make this matter ripe for adjudication. 2 See Raju v. Shanahan, No. 15-CV-7499 (RA), 2015 WL
7567455, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2015) (denying leave to amend a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus where petitioner had been detained for less than six months, and stating that “Petitioner’s
speculation that he will not receive a bail hearing before [the expiration of the six-month period] is
just that—speculation”); see also Chen v. Decker, 148 F. Supp. 3d 325, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (denying a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus where the petitioner had been detained pursuant to § 1226(c) for
less than six months).
III.

CONCLUSION
Because Petitioner’s detention period has not exceeded the six-month period established in

Lora, and he has not asserted any other basis for the relief sought, the Petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is DENIED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2016
New York, New York

__________________________________
_____________________
__ _______ ___
____ ____________
____
GREGORY H
GREGORY H. WOODS
GOR
United States District Judge
nited

2 The

Court observes that Petition does not demonstrate any efforts by Petitioner to request an earlier hearing date after
the hearing date was scheduled by the administrative law judge, and before commencing this action. The Court will not
assume that such an initiative would be fruitless.

3