Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03635/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03635-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 15-03635 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSE MIGUEL BAIRES,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Att’y Gen.;

JEH C. JOHNSON, Secretary of

Homeland Security, 

Respondents. /

No. C 15-03635 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

 Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his continued detention by United States

Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”). To this end he has filed a petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2241. Respondents move to dismiss the petition as moot. Petitioner has not filed

any response to the motion. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is GRANTED, and the

petition is DISMISSED. 

BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed. Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, is

facing deportation following a felony conviction. In 2011, he was convicted in federal court

Case 3:15-cv-03635-RS Document 15 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 15-03635 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 30 months in federal

prison. Consequent to this conviction, the Department of Homeland Security sought in 2013

to have him removed from the United States. At his removal hearing in April 2013 in the

Northern District, petitioner admitted to allegations that he was an alien who had violated a

controlled substance law. The immigration judge (“IJ”) sustained the charge of removability

and ordered petitioner removed to El Salvador. His appeals of the removal order to the

Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and then to the Ninth Circuit were denied. The

Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on February 4, 2015. 

In December 2014, during the pendency of his appeals, petitioner had a bond hearing

at which the IJ ordered him detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because he was

a danger to the community and a flight risk. His appeal of his detention without bond was

denied by the BIA on April 5, 2015. This federal habeas petition followed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alien detainees can properly challenge “the extent of the

Attorney General’s authority” to detain a removable alien under the general detention

statutes. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687–89 (2001); see also Denmore v. Kim, 538

U.S. 510, 516–17 (2003). 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks relief from the denial of release on bond and from an order of

detention issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which mandates the detention of aliens with

certain criminal convictions during the pendency of their removal proceedings. Respondents

contend that his current detention is based on a different statute, that is, 8 U.S.C. § 1231,

thereby rendering moot his petition seeking relief from detention under section 1226(c). 

 To determine whether petitioner is entitled to relief from custody, the Court first must

determine what statute authorizes his detention. Where an alien falls within the immigration

“statutory scheme can affect whether his detention is mandatory or discretionary, as well as

the kind of review process available to him if he wishes to contest the necessity of his

Case 3:15-cv-03635-RS Document 15 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 15-03635 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

detention.” Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs pre-removal detention of an alien. Section 1226(a)

authorizes immigration officials to arrest and to detain or release an alien during the preremoval period pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United

States. The authority given to immigration officials pursuant to section 1226(a) to release an

alien on bond during the pre-removal period applies in all circumstances “[e]xcept as

provided in subsection (c) of this section.” Section 1226(c) provides for mandatory detention

of certain criminal aliens without a bond hearing and provides, in relevant part: “[t]he

Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who — (A) is inadmissible by reason of

having committed any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this title.” Those offenses

include violations of laws relating to controlled substances. 

After the pre-removal period concludes, the statutory authority to detain an alien shifts

to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. “[W]hen an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove

the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as the

“removal period”). 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). The removal period begins on the latest of the

following dates: (1) the date the order of removal becomes administratively final; (2) if the

removal order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders a stay of the removal of the alien,

the date of the court’s final order; (3) if the alien is detained or confined (except under an

immigration process), the date the alien is released from detention or confinement. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a)(1)(B)(i)–(iii). 

A petition challenging detention under section 1226 is rendered moot when detention

authority shifts to section 1231. See, e.g., De la Teja v. United States, 321 F.3d 1357,

1361–64 (11th Cir. 2003) (alien’s habeas petition challenging detention under 8 U.S.C. §

1226 is moot when removal period starts and detention authority shifts to 8 U.S.C. § 1231);

Ufele v. Holder, 473 F. App’x 144, 146 (3rd Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (stating that when

removal order became administratively final, petitioner’s detention switched from §

1226 to § 1231, thereby rendering moot his claim challenging the lawfulness of his detention

under § 1226); Oyelude v. Chertoff, 170 F. App’x 366, 367 n.4 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Oyelude’s

Case 3:15-cv-03635-RS Document 15 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Petitioner admits as much. “While the Respondents would have a compelling

government interest in detaining the Petitioner in a ‘pending decision on whether the alien is

to be removed from the United States,’ that interest does not exist if he is [not] in the removal

period under Section 1231.” (Pet. at 4.) The brackets around “not” are in the original. 

No. C 15-03635 RS (PR)

4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

challenge to his § 1226 detention was mooted on June 23, 2004 when his final removal order

was entered and the Attorney General’s authority to detain him shifted to § 1231.”). 

The petition will be dismissed as moot. When the Ninth Circuit issued its final order

on February 4, 2015, the Attorney General’s authority to detain petitioner automatically

shifted to 8 U.S.C. § 1231, thereby rendering moot petitioner’s challenge to his detention and

denial of release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii).1

 

The Court will not construe the petition as a challenge to his detention under section

1231. Petitioner’s contentions are based solely on law relevant to section 1226 and the denial

of release on bond under that statute. Also, he admits that detention under section 1231

raises different concerns and claims. (Pet. at 4.) Petitioner may of course file a new petition

challenging his detention under section 1231. 

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss the petition as moot (Docket No. 14) is GRANTED. The

petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 14, enter judgment in favor

of respondents, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03635-RS Document 15 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 4