Swarray v. Lowe et al

Filing 13

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) re 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Alie Swarray, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 6 Report and Recommendations. AND N OW, this 18th day of August, 2017, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1) The report and recommendation is ADOPTED. 2) The petitioners petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the petitioner should be afforded an individualized bond hearing. 3) Within 30 days, an immigration judge is directed to afford the petitioner an individualized bail hearing. At this hearing, the immigration judge must make an individualized inquiry into whether detention is still nece ssary for the purposes of ensuring that the petitioner attends removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger to the community. Further, the government bears the burden of presenting evidence at this hearing and proving that the peti tioners continued detention is necessary to fulfill the purposes of the detention statute. Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011). 4) The parties should report to the District Court on the outcome of the individualized bail determination no later than three days after the immigration judges hearing. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 8/18/17. (pw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALIE SWARRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRAIG LOWE, et al.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:17-cv-0970

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2017, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
as follows:
1) The report and recommendation is ADOPTED.
2) The petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED
IN PART to the extent that the petitioner should be afforded an
individualized bond hearing.
3) Within 30 days, an immigration judge is directed to afford the petitioner an
individualized bail hearing. At this hearing, the immigration judge must
make an individualized inquiry into whether detention is still necessary for
the purposes of ensuring that the petitioner attends removal proceedings and
that his release will not pose a danger to the community. Further, the
government bears the burden of presenting evidence at this hearing and
proving that the petitioner’s continued detention is necessary to fulfill the

purposes of the detention statute. Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221,
233 (3d Cir. 2011).
4) The parties should report to the District Court on the outcome of the
individualized bail determination no later than three days after the
immigration judge’s hearing.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge

2