United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge.
January 20, 2017, petitioner Gursahib Singh filed, through
counsel, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §2241. (Doc. 1). The petitioner, an arriving
alien who was mandatorily detained by ICE under 8 U.S.C.
§1225(b), claims that he has suffered an unreasonably
prolonged mandatory detention of 16 months during the
pendency of his removal proceedings and, that he has not been
afforded the due process protections required by the United
States Constitution. Judge Carlson indicates that on August
30, 2016, the Immigration Judge ordered Singh removed to
India and denied Singh's applications for asylum and
withholding of removal. He also indicates that Singh appealed
the decisions to the Board of Immigration Appeals and that
his appeal is currently pending. (Doc. 7 at 5-6). As
such, Singh is not yet subject to a final order of removal
and he is being detained under §1225(b)(2)(A). Singh
requests his release from custody at Pike County Prison or a
constitutionally adequate bond hearing by an Immigration
Judge, where the respondents must demonstrate that his
continued detention is justified.
pending before the court is Judge Carlson's March 7, 2017
report, (Doc. 7), recommending that the petition be
granted in part to the extent that an Immigration Judge be
directed to conduct an individualized bond hearing for Singh.
Respondent filed objections to the report and a brief in
support. (Doc. 8, Doc. 9). Singh did not
respond to either the report or to respondent's
objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation
of a magistrate judge, the district court must review de
novo those portions of the report to which objections
are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the
standard is de novo, the extent of review is
committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and
the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate
judge to the extent it deems proper. Rieder v.
Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
those sections of the report and recommendation to which no
objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good
practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee
notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern.,
Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing
Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.
1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every
report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely
objections are made or not, the district court may accept,
not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
court has reviewed Judge Carlson's report and the
objections of respondent as well as the applicable law on the
issue presented herein and concurs with the sound reasoning
of Judge Carlson as well as the recent decision in this
district in Ahad v. Lowe, ___F.Supp.3d___, 2017 WL 66829
(M.D.Pa. Jan. 6, 2017). In Ahad, the court found
that “arriving aliens detained pre-removal pursuant to
§1225(b) have a due process right to an individualized
bond consideration once it is determined that the duration of
their detention has become unreasonable” and, that
“the 20 month duration of Ahad's detention has
reached this presumptively unreasonable length.” The
court agrees with the cases cited in Judge Carlson's
report as well as the Ahad case, and finds that the
pre-removal detention of Singh under §1225(b) is subject
to due process limitations and that he is entitled to an
individualized bond hearing by an Immigration Judge since his
more than 16-month detention is presumptively unreasonable.
the court will ADOPT Judge Carlson's report, (Doc.
7), and will GRANT IN PART Singh's habeas
petition, (Doc. 1), and order that an Immigration
Judge conduct an individualized bond hearing within 30 days.
The court will OVERRULE the objections of respondent, (Doc.
HEREBY ORDERED, THAT:
report and recommendation of Judge Carlson, (Doc.
7), is ADOPTED;
objections of respondent, (Doc. 8), are OVERRULED;
Petitioner Singh's habeas petition, (Doc. 1), is
GRANTED IN PART to the extent that it seek an individualized
individualized bond hearing shall be conducted by an
immigration judge within thirty (30) days of the date of this
the bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of
demonstrating that Singh's continued detention is still
necessary to fulfill the purposes of ensuring that he attends
removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a
danger to the ...