Court Opinion

ID: 9496577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:30:00.474206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:39.759263
License: Public Domain

HAYNES, District Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s holding that Ly’s incarceration for almost a year and a half was unreasonable and justifies issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Yet, for several reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reasonableness standard, due to its lack of any numerical time limitations for the detention of those lawful permanent resident aliens who object to their removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). In sum, Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedents have set time limits on the detention of aliens who have been ordered to be deported or aliens who have been declared excludable. Time constraints, consistent with the Supreme Court and this Circuit’s decisions, should be set for the detention of lawful permanent resident aliens who are object to their removal proceedings. The majority’s substantial reliance upon Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) is misplaced because Demore v. Kim 538 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003) is the controlling decision for the detention of lawful permanent resident aliens, such as Ly.
Ly was born on April 16, 1968 in Saigon, Vietnam. His family members include sol*274diers in the South Vietnamese Army who fought with United States military forces during the Vietnam war. Refusing to serve in the communist army in Cambodia and avoiding persecution, Ly fled to Thailand where he remained in a refugee camp for approximately two years. The United States Attorney General granted Ly refugee status when he entered the United States. Ly became a permanent United States resident on December 21, 1987, and has since lived in the United States with other family members who are also permanent residents.
On May 11, 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Services (“INS”) initiated removal proceedings against Ly based upon a 1993 conviction for use of a counterfeit credit card to purchase in excess of $2,000 of goods and services. Ly pled guilty and the district court sentenced him to four months incarceration and two years supervised release. The district court also approved the prosecution’s recommendation to reduce Ly’s sentence for his minor role in the criminal transaction, his cooperation, and his immediate confession. Ly successfully completed his supervised release on April 27,1995.
In 1999, Ly had another conviction for bank fraud because he passed a fraudulent bank check in a check-kiting scheme. In the pretrial proceeding of his second conviction, the district court determined that Ly was neither a serious flight risk nor a threat to the community and released Ly on a personal bond. For this conviction, Ly was sentenced to eight months and ordered to make restitution to the victim. Ly fully completed that criminal sentence.
These two convictions provide the basis for his removal for crimes of moral turpitude under § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of IIRIRA. Ly asserts that he would have been eligible for cancellation of removal under the former 212(c) waiver because prior to 1996, Ly’s conviction was not considered an “aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). At the time of his 1993 plea, an “aggravated felony” was defined under § 101(a)(43)(M) of the INA, as a crime causing a $200,000 loss to the victim for a crime of fraud or deceit. In 1996, three years after Ly’s plea, Congress retroactively expanded the definition of “aggravated felony” under § 101(a)(43)(M) of the INA by requiring only a $10,000 loss to the victim, thereby retroactively classifying Ly as an aggravated felon and thus, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of his removal. The immigration court found Ly removable as an aggravated felon under section 101(a)(48)(U) of the INA.
Vietnam, Ly’s native country, does not have an repatriation treaty with the United States and Ly has not been removed. As a result of his removal proceeding, Ly had been detained for over 500 days prior to the district court’s order granting the writ. With the lack of a repatriation treaty with Vietnam, Ly’s removal is unlikely for the reasonably foreseeable future.
In Kim, the Supreme Court held that mandatory detention of lawful permanent aliens residents who are subject to removal under 236(c) the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) is constitutionally permissible for the brief period of time necessary for their removal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s core conclusions were two-fold. First, the Court held that “Congress, justifiably concerned that deportable criminal aliens who are not detained continue to engage in crime and fail to appear for their removal hearings in large numbers, may require that persons such as [Kim] be detained for the brief period necessary for their removal proceedings” 123 S.Ct. at 1712. (Emphasis added). With this limitation, “[detention during removal pro*275ceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process.” Id at 1721-22. Thus, “a criminal alien who has conceded that he is deportable, for the limited period of his removal proceedings, is governed by these cases.” Id. at 1722.(eitations omitted). In other parts of its opinion, the majority in Kim emphasized that the detention was under Section 236(c) for a “limited period” id. at 1722 and “very limited time of ... detention,” Id at 1721 n.12.
Kim’s, holding clearly was premised, in significant part, upon its finding that the initial detention under Section 236(c) was for “a brief period necessary for their removal proceeding” Id. at 1712. The majority in Kim specifically cited the average length of time of a Section 236(c) detention prior to a disposition of the removal issue:
In the majority of cases it lasts for less than the 90 days we considered presumptively valid in Zadvydas. The Executive Office for Immigration Ke-view has calculated that, in 85% of the cases in which aliens are detained pursuant to Section 1226(c), removal proceedings are completed in an average time of 47 days and median of 30 days. Brief for Petitioners 39-40. In the remaining 15% of cases, in which that alien appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge to average of four months, with a median time that is slightly shorter. Id., at 40.
Kim, at 1720-21 (emphasis added).
To be sure, Kim addressed only the constitutionality of Section 236(c) mandating detention of lawful permanent aliens where the alien did not contest his detention. Kim did not address any outside time limits on that detention. Herd, Ly contests his deportation to Vietnam that lacks a repatriation treaty with this country. The majority’s holding here sets a limitation of detention, but only by a reasonableness standard, without any numerical time limits.
In my view, to set the constitutional standard for the length of detention for those lawful resident aliens who contest their deportation, we should borrow the time limits in Kim that the Supreme Court cited in upholding Section 236(e) for detention of lawful permanent resident aliens. These limitations would be presumptive time limits for detention of lawful resident aliens who object to their deportation and such limits are supported by Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit decisions in other alien deportation decisions. In a word, any time periods that exceed the time limits cited in Kim would be presumptively unconstitutional.
Implicit in Kim is that a detention of a lawful permanent resident subject to removal under Section 236(c) for up to 47 days is permissible. Borrowing Kim’s time limits, we should hold that any contested detention of a lawful permanent resident under Section 236(c) for more than forty seven (47) days is presumptively unreasonable and therefore, unconstitutional, absent an individualized assessment of flight and dangerousness. If the lawful permanent alien appeals an adverse decision, the presumptive time limit would be 120 days. These time limitations that are cited in Kim, reflect actual administrative experiences for conducting these removal hearings. If there were justifiable cause for detentions beyond these limits, then the agency must provide the alien with a statement of reasons for the delay and the opportunity for a due process hearing. The alien could then assess whether he can successfully challenge the agency’s stated reasons for continued detention at the due process hearing before the agency or later in court.
The Supreme Court set a presumptive standard of 90 days and an outside limit of six months detention for aliens who have been ordered removed absent a showing of *276a “strong special justification” for detention. 533 U.S. at 690, 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491. In Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 415 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc) this Court imposed, as a matter of law, a six months limitation for detention of excluda-ble aliens. Surely, as a matter of law, the initial detention of aliens who are lawfully permanent residents and who challenge their deportation, should be less than six months, the constitution limitation for detained aliens who are unlawfully in this country. Lawful permanent resident aliens who contest their continued detention should have greater due process rights than aliens who have been found to be removable or excludable.
Consistent with Zadvydas and Rosales-Garda, for those aliens who do not contest their removal, “if removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued detention” beyond six months “unreasonable”. Zadvydas 533 U.S. at 699, 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491. “After the 6 month period, once the alien proves good reason to believe that there is not significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond to rebut that showing ... This 6-month presumption of course does not mean that every alien not removed must be released after six months. To the contrary, an alien may be held in confinement until it has determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.” Id at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491.
As the circumstances of this appeal reveal, without a judicial time limit, detention of lawful permanent residents could exceed six months. Here, Ly was detained for 500 days. Despite Kim, the Appellant agency insists that “Ly’s detention pending the completion of his removal proceedings is statutorily authorized under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(B) and fully comports with due process under the Supreme Court’s decision in Kim”. (Appellant’s motion to vacate at p. 4). This expression of the agency’s viewpoint of reasonableness counsels the need for numerical time limitations.
Second, in Kim, the Supreme Court made it clear that where removal “was not practically attainable,” “detention’s goal no longer bears a reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual was committed.” Id. at 1719, 1720 citing Zadvydas. Thus, for the lawful permanent residents who object to removal to countries to which actual deportation or removal is impractical, as here, the detention hearing should be held promptly or as soon as practicable prior to the expiration of the 47 days of the initial detention.
Third, in Kim, the five justices required an individual determination to justify extended detention albeit in different contexts. In his concurring opinion in Kim, Justice Kennedy recognized the necessity of a due process hearing after an unreasonable period of detention, stating that:
“As a consequence, due process requires individualized procedures to ensure there is at least some merit to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) charge and, therefore, sufficient justification to detain a lawful permanent resident alien pending a more formal hearing ...”
* * *
For similar reasons, since the Due Process Clause prohibits arbitrary deprivations of liberty a lawful permanent resident alien such as respondent could be entitled to an individualized determination as to his risk of flight and dangerousness if the continued detention became unreasonable or unjustified.
(“[Alliens are entitled to be free form detention that is arbitrary or capri*277cious”). Were there to be an unreasonable delay by the INS in pursuing and completing deportation proceedings, it could become necessary then to inquire whether the detention is not to facilitate deportation or to protect against risk of flight or dangerousness, but to incarcerate for other reasons.
123 S.Ct. at 1722 (Kennedy, J., concurring). (emphasis added). Although in an unpublished decision, the Second Circuit described Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion as “explicating his understanding that the majority opinion may allow a challenge to detention when, for example, there has been unreasonable delay by the INS.” Zgombic v. Farquharson, 69 Fed.Appx. 2, 2003 WL 21243248 *1 (2nd Cir.2003).
Four other Justices in Kim, likewise would require an individualized due process hearing even before the initial detention period. “Due process calls for an individual determination before someone is locked away.” 123 S.Ct at 1733 (Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ. concurring in part, dissenting in part). “The statute would require the Government to permit a detained alien to seek an individualized assessment of flight risk and dangerousness as long as the alien’s claim that he is not reportable is (1) not interposed solely for purposes of delay and (2) raises a question of ‘law or fact’ that is not insubstantial” 123 S.Ct. at 1747, (Breyer, J. concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Here, Ly asserts an express claim that he was entitled to a due process hearing and an individual assessment of his risk of flight and his perceived dangerousness to justify his continued detention. For a lawful permanent alien resident who has been detained more than forty seven (47) days without a determination of his or her re-moveability and who objects to his deportation, I would hold such an alien resident is entitled to a due process hearing and an individual assessment of his risk of flight and/or dangerous to justify his or her continued detention.
Fourth, the majority opinion places substantial reliance on Zadvydas that involved aliens who had been ordered to be deported and whose detention was “potentially permanent.” Kim expressly distinguished Zadvydas as applicable to aliens who have been ordered to be deported and whose detention is a potentially permanent and indefinite.
Zadvydas is materially different from the present case in two respects.
First, the aliens there challenging their detention following final deportation orders were ones for who removal was “no longer practically attainable,” such that their detention did not serve its purported immigration purpose. In contrast, because the statutory provision at issue in this case governs detention of deport-able criminal aliens pending their removal proceedings, the detention necessarily serves the purpose of preventing the aliens from fleeing prior to or during such proceedings. Second, while the period of detention at issue in Zadvydas was “indefinite” and “potentially permanent,” the record shows that 1226(c) detention not only has a definite termination point, but lasts, in the majority of cases, for less that the 90 days the Court considered presumptively valid in Zad-vydas.
123 S.Ct. at 1719.
In my view, Kim is the more relevant and controlling authority here because Ly is a lawful permanent resident alien who objects to his removal and his continued detention. Thus, the majority’s substantial reliance on Zadvydas is misplaced in that the majority overlooks Ly’s status and his opposition to his removal. Kim is the *278controlling authority here for removal of lawful permanent residents who object to their removal. Kim imposes a constitutional limitation that any detention must be “brief’ and “limited” as well as reasonable.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.