United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Daniel A.,  is an immigration detainee currently held
at the Elizabeth Detention Center, in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
He is proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following
reasons, the habeas petition will be denied without
is a native and citizen of Ghana. He entered the United
States on October 27, 2016, seeking asylum, and he has been
detained by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, ("ICE") since that time.
filed this habeas petition on October 13, 2017, challenging
the duration of his detention. He seeks an order directing
that a bond hearing take place before an immigration judge
("IJ"). Respondent filed a response in opposition
to the habeas petition, arguing that Petitioner was entitled
to no bond hearing as he was detained under 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b). In reply, Petitioner contends that persons detained
under § 1225(b) should receive the same due-process
protections-particularly an individualized bond hearing-as
aliens detained under other statutes.
has notified the Court that, on March 23, 2018, the Board of
Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissed an appeal by
Petitioner of his order of removal. A review of court filings
indicates that Petitioner has not filed a petition for review
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The order of removal, then, is final.
seeks a bond hearing before an IJ based on the length of his
detention. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) As ICE issued Petitioner a
notice to appear for immigration proceedings when he was
attempting to enter the country and seeking asylum, he was
initially detained as an applicant for admission under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b). See 8 U.S.C. §
I225(b)(1)(B)(ii); Jennings v. Rodriguez, l38S.Ct.
of an applicant for admission pending further consideration
of an asylum petition or a removal proceeding is mandated by
§ 1225(b). See Id. Controlling statutes and
regulations do not provide for bond hearings concerning
persons detained under § 1225(b). See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 235.3(c), lOO3J9(h)(2)(i)(B). The rights of a
§ 1225(b) detainee, however, are no longer relevant in
this case, as the BIA's dismissal of Petitioner's
appeal converted his detention from pre- to post-removal.
See Id. § 1241.1(a). Such post-removal
immigration detention is governed by an entirely different
statutory scheme, under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The question of
whether Petitioner's detention warranted pre-removal
habeas relief is therefore moot. See Rodney v.
Mukasey, 340 Fed.Appx. 761, 764 (3d Cir. 2009);
Quezada v. Hendricks, 821 F.Supp.2d 702, 708 (D.N.J.
pre-removal period expired 90 days ago. As the arguments
raised in Petitioner's filings are no longer applicable,
the petition will be denied without prejudice.
is mandatory for the first 90 days of the post-removal period
(i.e.. the period that expires today), and may
continue for some time after that. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231. Section 1231 does not authorize indefinite
post-removal-period detention, however. Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001). Such detention is
limited "to a period reasonably necessary to bring about
that alien's removal from the United States."
Id. Six months, said the Court, would be a
"presumptively reasonable" period of post-removal
detention under § 1231. Id. at 701. Should
Petitioner wish to challenge the duration of his post-removal
detention, he may do so by filing a new habeas petition under
§ 2241 or by seeking leave to file an amended habeas
petition in this proceeding.
foregoing reasons, the habeas petition will be denied without
prejudice. An ...