United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Carlson, Magistrate Judge
Kane, District Judge
BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
the Court is Magistrate Judge Carlson's November 14, 2016
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9), that recommends that
the Court grant in part Petitioner Abdul Ahad's petition
for writ of habeas corpus submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Doc. No. 1), challenging the constitutionality
of Petitioner's twenty-month detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b) while awaiting the completion of immigration
removal proceedings without an individualized bond hearing
and determination to justify his continued detention.
Specifically, relying on Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York
County Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015), Rodriguez v.
Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015), cert.
granted sub nom. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 136 S.Ct. 2489
(2016), and other persuasive authority imposing temporal
limitations on pre-removal detention in the immigration
context, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends granting the
instant petition insofar as it requests an order directing
that Petitioner be afforded a prompt individualized bond
hearing, as “[f]undamental principles of fairness and
due process compel that these aliens have some rights to bond
consideration and may not face prolonged, indefinite
immigration detention bereft of any right to due process in
the form of an individualized bond determination.”
(Doc. No. 9 at 2.)
has objected to Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and
Recommendation, arguing that “[t]his Court should
decline to import a reasonableness requirement into 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A), ” but rather, adopt “the
approach taken by the courts that have found that neither the
statute nor the Constitution requires that aliens who are
detained while seeking admission to the United States be
provided with a bond hearing.” (Doc. Nos. 10, 11 at 4.)
Principally, Respondent disagrees with Magistrate Judge
Carlson's interpretation and application of the
developing due process jurisprudence in this field to support
his finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) contains an implicit
statutory reasonableness requirement and his recommendation
that Petitioner be afforded an individualized bond hearing.
(See Doc. No. 11.)
thoroughly considered the arguments raised in
Respondent's brief in support of its objections to the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 11), this Court finds
that Magistrate Judge Carlson correctly and comprehensively
addressed the substance of Respondent's objections in the
Report and Recommendation itself. Thus, the Court will not
write separately to address Respondent's objections and
will adopt Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation,
with a slight modification, as provided below.
on this 6th day of January 2017, upon detailed review of the
record and the applicable law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
9), of Magistrate Judge Carlson;
2. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus
submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is GRANTED IN
PART insofar as it seeks an individualized bond hearing;
3. An individualized bond hearing shall be conducted by an
immigration judge within thirty (30) days of the issuance of
4. At this hearing, the immigration judge shall make an
individualized inquiry into whether detention remains
necessary to fulfill the purposes of ensuring that the
Petitioner attends removal proceedings and that his release
will not pose a danger to the community in accordance with
Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison, 783
F.3d 469, 475 (3d Cir. 2015);
5. At this hearing, the government shall bear the burden of
presenting evidence and proving that Petitioner's
continued detention is necessary to fulfill the purposes of
the detention statute in accordance with Diop v.
ICE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011);
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this