Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130515_0000969.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-26 15:00:19
Document Index: 560990917

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 236', '§ 1226', '§ 1226', '§ 1226', '§ 2241']

| Lawrence v. Elwood
Lawrence v. Elwood
LLOYD G. LAWRENCE, Petitioner,v.BRIAN ELWOOD et al., Respondents.
On June 19, 2012, Petitioner Lloyd G. Lawrence ("Petitioner"), then a preremoval-order alien detainee, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging Petitioner's detention. See Docket Entry No. 1. Petitioner asserted that he was unlawfully held in custody as a result of Respondents' erroneous interpretation of the mandatory detention provision contained in § 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
On January 8, 2013, this Court issued an order staying this matter in light of Hosh v. Lucero , 680 F.3d 375, 384 (4th Cir. 2012) (concluding "that the BIA's interpretation of § 1226(c)... was reasonable, and must be accorded deference"), and analogous prior proceedings in this District finding the challenge fostered by Petitioner without merit. See, e.g., Espinoza-Loor v. Holder, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91307 (D.N.J. July 2, 2012); Diaz v. Muller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85971 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2011); Desrosiers v. Hendricks, No. 11-4643, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154971 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011). Noting that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was about to offer conclusive guidance as to the proper interpretation of § 1226(c) in Sylvain v. Holder, U.S.C.A. Index No. 11-3357 (3d Cir. docketed Aug. 31, 2011), this Court directed stay of this matter so to allow Petitioner an opportunity to: (a) assess the Court of Appeals' decision, once it was entered; and (b) file an amended § 2241 petition if Petitioner so elected.