# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 9- 12 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Fara ss Ali

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el le e

v.

Jo el L. Brot t, Sh eri ff, Sh erb ur ne Co un ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el la nt

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral ; Ki rs tjen Niel se n, Se cret ary, Depa rtment o f

Hom el an d S ecu rit y ; Ro na ld Vit ie ll o, Act in g Di rect or , Im m ig rat io n a nd Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t; Pet er B. Be rg , Direc to r, St. Pa ul Fie ld Offic e Im m ig rat io n a nd

Cu st om s En fo rcem en t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt s

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 2, 2 01 9
Fi le d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Fara ss Ali

, who im m ig rat ed to th e Uni te d St at e s i n 20 14

, ha s be en he ld in

cu st od y u n d e r 8 U.S.C. § 12 26 (a) si nc e May 20 17 whi le he li ti ga te s th e is su e of

whe th er he is a rem ov ab le al ie n. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d rel ie f on Ali ’s pe ti ti on fo r

a writ of ha be as co rp us aft er in te rp ret in g § 12 26 (a) to pe rm it de te nt io n of an al ie n

on ly fo r a “ pe rio d reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry to r e cei ve a rem ov al de ci si on ” an d

co nc lu di ng Ali ’s ti m e in de te nt io n was no t reas on ab le

. Sh erb ur ne Co un ty Sh eri ff

Jo el Bro tt ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t wro ng ly ap pl ie d a “ reas on ab le ne ss ” 1

st an da rd no t in cl ud ed in th e te xt of th e st at ut e. W e ag ree w i t h Sh eri ff Bro tt an d

th eref or e rev ers e th e or de r gr an ti ng Ali ’s pe ti ti on an d rem an d fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to

co ns id er Al i’s co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en ts

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Ali is a na ti ve an d ci ti ze n o f Iraq

. In Ja nu ary 20 14

, Ali en te red th e Uni te d

St at es as a refu ge e. His im m ig rat io n st at us was ad jus te d to la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t

in 20 15

.

In Nov em be r 20 16

, Ali was arre st ed in Mi nn es ot a fo r vi ol at io n of Mi nn es ot a

la ws. The arre st cau se d fed eral in ve st ig at or s to rev ie w Ali ’s im m ig rat io n st at us

. The

Dep art m en t of Hom el an d S ecu rit y cla im s t o ha ve fo un d si gn ifi can t in co ns is te nc ie s

am on g Ali ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r refu ge e st at us , hi s st at em en ts to of fic ers who in te rv ie wed

hi m on th at ap pl ic at io n, an d h i s a pp li cat io n fo r ad jus tm en t of st at us to la wfu l

T he dis tr ic t co ur

t dis m is se d cert ai n fed eral of fic ia ls as res po nd en ts aft er not ing 1

on ly Sh eri ff Bro tt was a pr op er res po nd en t to Ali ’s pe ti ti on

. Se e Rums fe ld v. Pad il la

, 54 2 U.S. 42 6, 43 4– 35 (2 00 3) (rec og ni zi ng th e pr op er res po nd en t to a ha be as pe ti ti on is “ th e pe rs on who ha s cu st od y ov er [th e pe ti ti on er]

. . . . no t th e Att or ne y Gen eral or

so m e o th er re m ot e su pe rv is or y off ic ia l” ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ).

-2

-pe rm an en t res id en t. Fed eral in ve st ig at or s al so ex am in ed Ali ’s so ci al m ed ia pl at fo rm

an d fo un d p os ts rel at ed to an d p ur po rte dl y in su pp or t o f a t erro ris t o rg an iz at io n.

In May 20 17

, FBI Sp eci al Age nt s in te rv ie w e d A l i an d qu es ti on ed hi m

reg ard in g hi s us e of so ci al m ed ia an d hi s fam il ia l l i n eag e. Age nt s as ke d fo r hi s

co ns en t to se arch th e el ect ro ni c de vi ces he us ed to acce ss so ci al m ed ia

. Ali co ns en te d

on ly to a se arch of hi s la pt op

. The da y aft er th e in te rv ie w, fed eral im m ig rat io n ag en ts

to ok Ali in to cu s t o dy p ur su an t to an ad m in is tra ti ve warra nt

. Ali was se rv ed wit h a

Not ic e to App ear an d ch arg ed wit h be in g a rem ov ab le al ie n who

, at th e ti m e of en try

or ad jus tm en t, pr oc ur ed ad m is si on in to th e Uni te d St at es by frau d or wil lfu l

m is rep res en ta ti on , an d as an al ie n who

, at th e ti m e of en try or ad jus tm en t, was

in ad m is si bl e b ecau se he was n ot in po ss es si on of v al id tra ve l d oc um en ts

.

In Ju ne 20 17

, Ali was tra ns ferr ed to st at e cu st od y fo r pu rp os es of hi s pe nd in g

st at e ch arg es

. Sh or tl y aft er, th e FBI no ti fie d im m ig rat io n of fic ia ls Ali wou ld be

co ns id ered a th reat to na ti on al se cu rit y if he was rel eas ed fro m im m ig rat io n cu st od y

. In Ju ly 20 17

, Ali ’s st at e cri m in al ch arg es were di sm is se d an d he was tra ns ferr ed ba ck

to fed eral im m ig rat io n c us to dy.

Bet ween Ju ly 20 17 an d Aug us t 20 18

, an Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e (“ IJ ”) pr es id ed

ov er a se rie s of he ari ng s on th e m eri ts of th e rem ov al ch arg es an d ot he r m at te rs

. The

IJ gr an te d m

ul ti pl e co nt in ua nc es , al m os t all of whi ch were at A li ’s req ue st

. Dur in g

th is ti m e, on Sep te m

be r 19

, 20 17

, th e IJ pr es id ed ov er a bo nd he ari ng

. Ali cal le d two

wit ne ss es an d bo th pa rti es su bm it te d ev id en ce. The IJ de ni e d A l i’s req ue st to be

rel eas ed on bo nd

, co nc lu di ng Ali h a d f a i l e d to sh ow he was no t a da ng er to th e

co m m un it y

. Ali di d no t ap pe al th e IJ ’s bo nd de te rm in at io n an d ha s no t so ug ht a ne w

bo nd he ari ng

.

On Sep te m

be r 7, 20 18

, Ali fil ed a pe ti ti on fo r ha be as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C.

§ 22 41

, se ek in g rele as e fro m fed eral im m ig rat io n cus to dy pe nd in g reso lu ti on of hi s

-3

-im m ig rat io n pr oc eed in gs

. Ali arg ue d hi s co nt in ue d de te nt io n was no t au th or iz ed by

§ 12 26 (a), vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t r ig ht to du e pr oc es s, an d was an

un au th or iz ed sei zu re un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. The go ve rn m en t ar gu ed Ali ’s

co nt in ue d de te nt io n was co ns ti tu ti on al an d th at Ali was pe rm it t e d t o s e e k rel ie f

throu gh ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es

. The go ve rn m en t al so su gg es te d Ali was th e cau se

of an y un du e d el ay

in hi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs

.

The di st ric t co ur t en te red an or de r on Ja nu ary 7, 20 19

, gr an ti ng Ali ’s pe ti ti on

an d or de rin g Bro tt to rel eas e Ali fro m cu st od y wit hi n th irt y da y s. The di st ric t co ur t

ex pl ai ne d th at Ali was su bjec t to pr e-re m ov al de te nt io n un de r § 12 26 (a) an d ob se rv ed

th e st at ut e di d no t ex pl ic it ly l i mi t th e le ng th of an al ie n’s pr e-re m ov al de te nt io n

pe rio d. The di st ric t co ur t co m pa red th e si tu at io n to Za dv yd as v. Dav is

, 53 3 U.S. 67 8
(2 00 1)

. In Za dv

yd as , th e Su pr em e Co ur t an al y zed 8 U

. S

. C. § 12 31 (a)( 6)

, whi ch

go ve rn s po st -rem ov al or de r de te nt io n, an d em pl oyed t he do ct rin e of co ns ti tu ti on al

av oi da nc e to read a “ reas on ab le ne ss li m it at io n” in to th e le ng th of ti m e an al ie n co ul d

b e de ta in ed aft er he was or de red rem ov ed

. 53 3 U.S. at 68 9– 90

. App lying th e

rat io na le of Za dv

yd as to th e fact s of Ali ’s cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at pr erem ov al or de r de te nt io n un de r § 12 26 ( a ) is li m it ed to “ th e pe rio d reas on ab ly

ne ces sa ry to rece iv e a rem ov al de ci si on .” The di st ric t co ur t th en de te r mi n e d Ali ’s

ti m e in de te nt io n ha d e xc eed ed th is li m it at io n an d th eref or e or de red hi m rel eas ed

wit hi n t hi rty days.

Afte r th e di st r i c t c o u rt de ni ed hi s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n, Sh eri ff Bro tt 2

ap pe al ed an d so ug ht an em erg en cy m ot io n to st ay th e di st ric t co ur t or de r pe nd in g

The ba si s fo r Sh eri ff Bro tt ’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n was th e fact th at 2

du rin g th e ti m e pe rio d be twee n whe n Ali fil ed hi s pe ti ti on f o r h a be as co rp us an d
whe n th e di st ric t co ur t is s u e d i t s or de r gr an ti ng Ali ’s pe ti ti on , th e IJ ha d is su ed an

or de r of rem ov al or de rin g Ali ’s de po rta ti on to Iraq

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Sh eri ff

Bro tt ’s m ot io n be cau se th e IJ ’s or de r was pr ov is io na l an d no t fin al un ti l affi rm ed by

th e Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s. The di st ric t c o u r t or de red Ali rel eas ed wit hi n th irt y da y s fr om

th e d at e o f th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rig in al gra nt of Al i’s p et it io n.

-4

-ap pe al

. W e gr an te d a te m po rary st ay un ti l fu rth er or de r of th e c o u r t

, di rect ed th e

pa rti es to fil e si mu l t a n e o us br ie fs on th e m eri ts , a nd se t th e cas e fo r or al arg um en t.

II . Disc us si on

W he th er we can affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of Ali ’s ha be as pe ti ti on tu rn s

on th e la ng ua ge of 8 U.S.C. § 12 26 (a) and ap pl ic at io n of the Due Pro ces s Cl au se of

th e Fi fth Am en dm en t in th e co nt ex t of th e st at ut e. Fo r th e reas on s se t f o rth be lo w,

we va cat e th e or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t di rect in g rel eas e of Ali an d rem an d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs

.

W e be gi n by re fere nc e to th e ap pl ic ab le fed eral st at ut e, whi ch fir st pr ov id es ,

“ an al ie n m ay be arre st ed an d de ta in ed pe nd in g a de ci si on on whe th er th e al ie n is to

be rem ov ed fro m t h e U n it ed St at es .” 8 U.S.C. § 12 26 (a). The st at ut e go es on to

“ ge ne ra ll y gi ve [] th e Secr et ary [o f Hom el an d Secu rit y ] th e di sc ret io n ei th er to de ta in

th e al ie n or to rel eas e hi m on bo nd or pa ro le .” Ni el se n v. Prea

p , 13 9 S. Ct

. 95 4, 95 9
(2 01 9)

. “ If th e al ie n is de ta in ed

, he m ay se ek rev ie w of hi s de te nt io n by an of fic er at

t he Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y an d th en by an im m ig rat io n jud ge (b ot h

ex erci si ng po wer de le g a t e d b y th e Secr et ary).” Id

. at 95 9– 60 (ci ti ng 8 C.F.R.

§§ 23 6.1 (c)( 8) an d (d )(1 ), 10 03 .19 , 12 36 .1(d )(1 )).

At is su e he re is whe th er, in or de r to av oi d du e pr oc es s co nc ern s, th is co ur t m us t

co ns tru e th e st at ut e as co nt ai ni ng an im pl ie d “ reas on ab le ne ss ” li m it on pr e-o rd er

de te nt io n s im il ar t o t ha t fo un d b y th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Za dv yd as , 53 3 U.S. at 69 1,

69 9, wi th res pe ct to th e p os t-d et en ti on st at ut e, 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (a)( 6)

.

App li cat io n of th e can on of co ns ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e to im pl y te rm s in a st at ut e

th at do no t ex is t in it s te xt is ne ces sa ril y a se rio us m at te r im pl ic at in g th e pr op er ro le

of th e jud ic ia ry

. Alt ho ug h a m at te r of f irs t im pr es si on in th is ci rcu it

, we do no t

ap pr oa ch th is qu es ti on wit h a bl an k sl at e. The Su pr eme Co ur t rece nt ly re-

-5

-em

ph as iz ed

, in a cas e di sc us si ng th e sa m e st at ut or y fram ewo rk

, th at a co ur t m ay no t

res or t to co ns ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e un le ss cert ai n cri te ria are m et

. Fi rs t, th e can on

sh ou ld on ly be us ed “ [w]hen ‘a se rio us do ub t’ is rai se d ab ou t th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of

an act of Co ng res s.” Prea p , 13 9 S. Ct

. at 97 1 (al te rat io n in o r i g i n al ) (q uo ti ng

Jen ni ng s v. Rod ri gu ez , 13 8 S. Ct

. 83 0, 84 2 (2 01 8) ). Eve n th en , a co ur t m ay no t res or t

to co ns ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e un le ss it fir st co nc lu de s th e st at ut e is “ su sc ep ti bl e of m or e

th an on e co ns tru ct io n.” Id

. at 97 2 (q uo ti ng sa m e). “ The can on ‘has no ap pl ic at io n’

ab se nt ‘ am

bi gu it y .’ ” Id. (q uo ti ng W ar ge r v. S ha ue rs , 57 4 U.S. 4 0, 5 0 (2 01 4) ).

To be gi n wit h, we are sk ep ti cal of Al i ’s arg um en t th at hi s de te nt io n pe nd in g

a de ci si on on whe th er he is to be rem ov ed un de r § 12 26 (a) is un co ns ti tu ti on al

co ns id eri ng he was gi ve n a bo nd he ari ng an d s ti ll ha s av ai la bl e pr oc ed ur al av en ue s

to se ek rel ie f. Se e 8 C.F.R. §§ 23 6.1 (c)( 8) an d (d ), 10 03 .19

, 12 36 .1(d ). The Su pr em e

Co ur t ha s ne ve r in di cat ed th e bo nd he ari ng pr oc es s se t fo r t h i n t h e st at ut e an d

acco m pa nyin g reg ul at io ns is co ns ti tu ti on al ly de fic ie nt

. To th e co nt rary, Su pr em e

Co ur t pr eced en t in di cat es su ch a fr am ewo rk is co ns ti tu ti on al ly pe rm is si bl e. Se e

Demor e v. Ki m , 53 8 U.S. 51 0, 52 3 (2 00 3) (ex pl ai ni ng “ th is Co ur t ha s r e c o g ni zed

de te nt io n du rin g de po rta ti on pr oc ee d in gs as a co ns ti tu ti on al ly va li d as pe ct of th e

de po rta ti on pr oc es s” ) ; Uni te d St at es v. Sa le rn o , 48 1 U.S. 73 9, 74 8, 75 5 (1 98 7)
(h ol di ng th e Bai l Refo rm Act of 19 84 di d no t faci al ly vi ol at e th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se

of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t an d, no ti ng in su pp or t of it s co n c l u s i o n , it ha d pr ev io us ly

“ fo u n d n o ab so lu te co ns ti tu ti on al ba rri er to de te nt io n of po te nt ia ll y da ng ero us

res id en t al ie ns pe nd in g de po rta ti on pr oc eed in gs ”). In de ed

, we fin d it no te wor th y th at

al ie ns ch al le n g i n g t h e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th ei r de te nt io ns in Jen ni ng s an d Demor e

so ug ht

, as a re med

y , a bo nd he ari ng si m il ar to wha t Ali was gi ve n. Se e Jen ni ng s , 13 8

S. Ct . at 8 39 ; Demor e , 53 8 U.S. at 51 7, 5 28

.

Reg ard l e s s , e v e n if we as su m e th at de sp it e th e sa feg ua rd of a bo nd he ari ng

th ere is a se rio us do ub t as to th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of de te nt io n un de r § 12 26 ( a )

, t h e

can on of co ns ti tu ti on al av oi d a n c e i s no t pr op er he re be cau se th e st at ut e is no t

-6

-su sc ep ti bl e to m or e th an on e co ns tr u c ti on as to th e le ng th of de te nt io n. In co nt ras t

to th e st at ut e an al y zed in Za dv yd as , § 12 26 (a) li m it s t h e p e r i od of de te nt io n to th e

pe rio d “ pe nd in g a de ci si on on whe th er th e al ie n is t o b e r e mo v e d fro m th e Uni te d

St at es .” W hi le th is is no t su bjec t to pr eci se cal cu la ti on , it is

, no ne th el es s, a de fin ed

pe r i o d t h a t do es ha ve an en d. Cf . J en ni ng s , 1 38 S. Ct . a t 84 6 (rea so ni ng § 12 26 (c)

is no t am bi gu ou s or ev en si le nt reg ard in g th e le ng th of de te nt io n be cau se it m an da te s

de te nt io n pe nd in g a de ci si on on whe th er th e al ie n is to be rem ov ed fro m th e co un try);

Demor e , 5 38 U.S. at 5 28 –2 9 (n ot in g t ha t u nl ik e th e d et en ti on at is su e in Za dv yd as , whi ch was in de fin it e an d po te nt ia ll y pe rm an en t, de te nt io n un de r § 12 26 ( c ) ha s a

“ de fin it e te rm in at io n p oi nt ” an d i s o f a “ sh or te r du rat io n” ).

It is si gn ifi can t th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s fo un d un am bi g u o u s th e la ng ua ge of

§ 12 26 (c), whi ch req ui res m an da to ry de te nt io n un ti l a de ci si on reg ard in g rem ov al is

reac h ed , a nd th eref

or e ha s refu se d to us e co ns ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e to read an ex tra

te xt ua l “ reas on ab le ne ss ” li m it at io n in to th e st at u t e

. We se e no pr in ci pl ed ba si s fo r

vi ewin g § 12 26 (a)’s te xt reg ard in g t h e l en gt h of de te nt io n an y di ffer en tl y

. The

pr im ary di ffer en ce be twee n th e two su bs ect io ns of th e st at ut e is th e av ai la bi li ty of a

bo nd he ari ng fo r al ie ns he ld un de r su bs ect io n (a). And th is di ffer en ce, which gi ve s

alie ns lik e A li mor e pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t pr ol on ge d de te nt io n th an al ie ns de ta in ed un de r § 12 26 (c), m il it at es ag ai ns t read in g a reas on ab le ne ss li mi t a t i on in to § 12 26 (a)

be cau se it m ak es th e st at ut e le ss li ke ly to v io la te th ei r du e p ro ces s ri gh ts

.

In li gh t of th is pr eced en t, we ho ld § 12 26 (a) is no t su sc ep ti bl e of m or e th an on e

co ns tru ct io n. As a res ul t, th e co n s t it ut io na l av oi da nc e do ct rin e ha s no ap pl ic at io n

he re. The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e erre d whe n it co nc lu de d pr e-re m ov al or de r

de te nt io n un de r § 12 26 (a ) i s li m it ed to “ th e pe rio d reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry to rece iv e

a rem ov al de ci si on .” W e rev ers e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er o n t hi s b as is

.

The an al y si s do es no t en d he r e , ho wev er. In hi s pe ti ti on , Ali arg ue d hi s

co nt in ue d de te nt io n vi ol at ed no t on ly § 12 26 (a), bu t h i s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s un de r

-7

-th e Fo ur th an d Fi fth Am en dm en t s

. A s i n Jen ni ng s , 1 38 S. Ct . a t 85 1, we co nc lu de

t h i s mat te r sh ou ld be rem an de d to th e di st ric t co ur t to fu rth er co ns id er Ali ’s

co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en ts co ns is t e n t wit h th is de ci si on an d rel ev an t Su pr em e Co ur t

pr eced en t. 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Sh eri ff Bro tt fil ed a Mo ti on to Str ik e Ali ’s Rul e 28 (j) fil in g o n t he gro un d i t 3

im pr op erl y pr ov id es arg um en t an d an al y si s rat he r th an m erel y se tt in g fo rth pe rti ne nt

an d si gn ifi can t au th or it ie s whi ch cam e to hi s at te nt io n aft er hi s br ie f was fil ed

. Fed

. R. App

. P. 28 (j). Bec au se ou r an al y si s m ad e it un ne ces sa ry to co ns id er th e arg um en ts
ad va nc ed in Ali ’s fil in g, we d en y th e m ot io n a s m oo t.

-8

-