Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

appealhearingmotionsummary judgmenthabeas corpusdeportationliensmotion for summary judgment
defendantappealmotionsummary judgmentdue processcase lawliensmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Lepe-Guitron v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Hernandez v. Gonzales
View Case »
Rabiu v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Mapother v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Nadarajah v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Greenland v. Dist. Dir., Immigration and Naturalization Service/Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Department of Homeland Security

Facts

Ronald Greenland was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pending deportation under a final order of removal from the United States. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on June 23, 2008, challenging his continued detention without a bond hearing, claiming it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) �6(c). However, a formal stay on his removal had been placed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on November 19, 2007, due to a pending action by Greenland.

The instant petition was filed on June 23, 2008, at which point petitioner had been in DHS custody for less than three months.

Issue

Whether Greenland's continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) �6(c) and whether his claims regarding unreasonable detention were valid.

Although detention under such circumstances is generally subject to the time limitations imposed by 8 U.S.C. r31(a) and the applicable case law, on November 19, 2007, a formal stay was placed on petitioner's removal by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in connection with a pending action by petitioner.

Rule

Detention under INA �1(a) governs the detention of aliens following a final order of removal, rather than �6(c), which applies to certain criminal aliens prior to such an order. The court also referenced the Zadvydas v. Davis decision regarding the reasonableness of detention periods.

INA �1(a) 'governs the detention of aliens following a final order of removal, rather than �6(c), which governs the detention of certain criminal aliens prior to such an order.

Analysis

The court determined that Greenland's reliance on INA �6(c) was misplaced since he was subject to INA �1(a) after the final order of removal. The court noted that the stays of removal issued by the Second Circuit did not automatically render his detention unreasonable, and Greenland failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of unreasonable detention.

Moreover, to the extent that petitioner claims that his continued detention is unreasonable under INA �1(a), the defendant is prevented from deporting the petitioner solely due to the stays effected by the Second Circuit.

Conclusion

The court denied Greenland's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's motion, resulting in the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

For the reasons stated above, petitioner's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 6) is denied with prejudice, DHS's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 7) is granted, and the petition is hereby dismissed.

Who won?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) prevailed in the case because the court found Greenland's claims regarding his detention to be without merit.

Accordingly, '[t]o the extent that [petitioner] previously may have had a cognizable due process argument under �6, that claim has been rendered moot' by the entry of a final order of removal.

You must be