Ashemuke v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director

Filing 42

ORDER denying Petitioner's 32 Motion for release from custody. Petitioner's 38 MOTION to Re-Characterize is GRANTED in part and RENOTED on the Court's calendar for 8/2/2024. The government's response to the recharacterized m otion to enforce the Court's prior order and petitioners status update is due on or before 7/22/2024. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be received by the Court on or before the note date. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MJV)(cc: Petitioner via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 EMMANUEL ASHEMUKE, Petitioner, 9 v. 10 11 Case No. C23-1592-RSL ORDER ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent. 12 13 14 On April 18, 2024, the Court denied petitioner’s request for immediate release from ICE 15 detention, but ordered defendant to provide an individualized bond hearing before an 16 immigration judge following the procedures set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 17 2011). Dkt. # 29.1 A bond hearing was held six days later, and the immigration judge denied 18 bond and conditional release, concluding that the government had “established by clear and 19 convincing evidence that [petitioner] is a Danger to the Community and a Flight Risk.” Dkt. # 31 20 at 4-5. This matter is again before the Court on petitioner’s (a) motion for release from custody 21 22 23 1 Respondent has appealed that order. ORDER - 1 1 (Dkt. # 32), (b) motion to recharacterize Dkt. # 32 as a motion to enforce the Court’s prior order 2 (Dkt. # 38), and (c) June 28, 2024, status update (Dkt. # 41). The motion for release from custody is DENIED. That request for relief was specifically 3 4 rejected earlier in the proceeding, and petitioner offers no reason to reconsider or readjudicate 5 that aspect of his petition. In his second motion, petitioner argues that the bond hearing he was given did not 6 7 comply with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), as required by the Court, and that 8 the Court retains jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s compliance with its order. 9 Petitioner also submitted evidence that the Department of Homeland Security has argued in the 10 administrative proceeding that bond must be denied “[i]n spite of the District Court’s direction” 11 because petitioner’s conviction makes him statutorily ineligible under INA, § 236(c). The limited 12 record available to petitioner does not rule out the possibility that the immigration judge was 13 influenced by that argument. Dkt. # 41-1 at 5. Although discretionary decisions are generally not subject to judicial review, some courts 14 15 have found that habeas courts have the power to review agency action for the purpose of 16 ensuring government compliance with their mandates and have, in that context, evaluated the 17 legal sufficiency of the immigration judge’s findings and the procedures used. See, e.g., 18 Judulang v. Chertoff, 562 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1126 (S.D. Cal. 2008). The Court would benefit 19 from the government’s input regarding the jurisdictional issues raised in petitioner’s motion to 20 recharacterize, the scope of any judicial review in these circumstances, and the substantive issues 21 that are within the Court’s purview. 22 23 // ORDER - 2 1 For all of the foregoing reason, petitioner’s motion for release (Dkt. # 32) is DENIED 2 and his motion to recharacterize (Dkt. # 38) is GRANTED in part. The Clerk of Court is directed 3 to renote (Dkt. # 38) on the Court’s calendar for Friday, August 2, 2024. The government’s 4 response to the recharacterized motion to enforce the Court’s prior order and petitioner’s status 5 update is due on or before July 22, 2024. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be received by the Court 6 on or before the note date. 7 8 Dated this 8th day of July, 2024. 9 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 3

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?