Opinion ID: 3213240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: sopo’s detention

Text: Application of the above reasonableness factors to Sopo’s case is straightforward. As to the first factor, Sopo has been in continuous detention for four years without a bond hearing, at least three-and-a-half of which have been under § 1226(c) detention.12 The sheer length of Sopo’s detention on its own is 12 The government asserts that Sopo’s detention shifted from § 1226(c) to § 1231 when the BIA issued an administratively final removal order on August 10, 2015, citing mainly a footnote in Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 n.4 (11th Cir. 2002). Sopo responds that he has remained in § 1226(c) detention the whole time he has been in custody. He argues that the “removal period,” and § 1231 detention, never began because this Court issued a stay of 45 Case: 14-11421 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 46 of 79 enough to convince us that his liberty interest long ago outweighed any justifications for using presumptions to detain him without a bond inquiry. See Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478. As to the second factor—cause of delay—the government did not respond to Sopo’s FOIA request for months. The prosecutor refused to file a copy of Sopo’s 2004 asylum application. The bulk of the government’s delay, though, came from the IJ erring several times. Indeed, Sopo’s proceedings continue to this day. While Sopo refused to file a new asylum application form in 2012, insisted on retrieval of his 2004 form, and requested continuances, the delays he caused were negligible compared to the amount of time it took for his case move back and forth between the IJ and the BIA three times. Importantly too, Sopo’s civil immigration detention is in a prison-like facility and is now longer than his prison time for bank fraud. “[T]here can be no question that [Sopo’s] detention . . . without further inquiry into whether it was necessary to ensure his appearance at the removal proceedings or to prevent a risk of danger to the community, [is] unreasonable and, removal while it was considering his petition for review. See INA § 241(a)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii). We need not decide whether part of Sopo’s four-year detention shifted from § 1226(c) to § 1231 at some point, or the effect of the stay, because his case is now back before the BIA, which means his detention continues under § 1226(c). The parties agree on this point. Furthermore, even disregarding the six-month period in dispute, from August 10, 2015 to this Court’s remand of Sopo’s petition for review on February 2, 2016, Sopo’s § 1226(c) detention has lasted three-and-a-half years. 46 Case: 14-11421 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 47 of 79 therefore, a violation of the Due Process Clause.” Diop, 656 F.3d at 234-35. Accordingly, we order the government to grant Sopo an individualized bond inquiry within ten days of the filing date of this opinion.