Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearinghabeas corpusdue processvisaliens

hearingmotionhabeas corpuswilldue processliens

Related Cases

Barradas-Jacome v. Lowe

Facts

Alexis Fernando Barradas-Jacome, a native of Mexico, entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 2004 and overstayed. He was granted DACA status in 2013, which expired in 2017. After a conviction for receiving stolen property in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Barradas-Jacome has been detained since June 2020, and this is his second habeas corpus petition regarding his detention.

Barradas-Jacome has been detained in ICE custody since June 11, 2020. This is the second petition for writ of habeas corpus he has filed with this court to challenge his detention. With respect to the first petition, we denied relief on January 26, 2022, finding that Barradas-Jacome was not entitled to habeas corpus relief under the standards of Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 208-09 (3d Cir. 2020).

Issue

Whether Barradas-Jacome's continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

He contends that his continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Rule

Detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) does not limit the length of time the government may detain aliens awaiting removal, but petitioners may challenge prolonged detention as unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause.

Section 1226(c) does not by its terms limit the length of time that the government may detain aliens awaiting removal. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. , 138 S. Ct. 830, 846, 200 L. Ed. 2d 122 (2018). But petitioners may nonetheless bring as-applied constitutional challenges if their continued detention under Section 1226(c) has become unreasonably prolonged under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Santos, 965 F.3d at 208-09.

Analysis

The court analyzed the duration of Barradas-Jacome's detention, which has been approximately 22 months since his last bond hearing. While this duration weighs in favor of habeas relief, the court noted that the likelihood of his immigration proceedings concluding soon and the fact that he had already received a bond hearing outweighed this factor. The conditions of his detention were also considered, but ultimately, the court found that he was not entitled to relief at this time.

Having reviewed Barradas-Jacome's petition in light of the above standard, we find that he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief at this time. Assuming, arguendo, that petitioners detained under Section 1226(c) who have already received a bond hearing may be entitled to a second bond hearing when they have been detained for an unreasonably prolonged period of time after the first bond hearing, Barradas-Jacome is not entitled to relief because he has not shown that his continued detention since his May 12, 2021 bond hearing is unconstitutional.

Conclusion

The court denied Barradas-Jacome's petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice, allowing him the option to file a renewed petition if circumstances change.

We will deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. Barradas-Jacome's motion to expedite will be denied as moot.

Who won?

The government prevailed in this case as the court denied Barradas-Jacome's petition for habeas corpus relief.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Fragedela v. Thornburgh

Bhattarai v. Lynch

Sharif ex rel. Sharif v. Ashcroft

E.D. v. Sharkey

Gonzalez-Alarcon v. Macias