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

attorneystatuteappealhearingfelonydue processjudicial review
attorneystatuteappealhearingfelonydue processjudicial review

Related Cases

Goncalves v. Reno
View Case »
Hosh v. Lucero
View Case »
Palamaryuk v. Duke
View Case »
Skutnik v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Trinidad y Garcia v. Thomas
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Prieto-Romero v. Clark

Facts

Prieto-Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico, has been a legal permanent resident of the United States since 1981. He was served with a notice to appear and detained by the Department of Homeland Security in February 2005. An immigration judge found that Prieto-Romero was a removable alien because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony in 1989. He appealed the IJ's ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the removal order in September 2005. He then filed a timely petition for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which entered a stay of removal pending consideration of his petition.

Prieto-Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico, has been a legal permanent resident of the United States since 1981. He was served with a notice to appear and detained by the Department of Homeland Security in February 2005. An immigration judge found that Prieto-Romero was a removable alien because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony in 1989. He appealed the IJ's ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the removal order in September 2005. He then filed a timely petition for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which entered a stay of removal pending consideration of his petition.

Issue

Whether the government may continue to detain a legal permanent resident of the United States for over three years while he seeks administrative and judicial review of his removal order.

Whether the government may continue to detain a legal permanent resident of the United States for over three years while he seeks administrative and judicial review of his removal order.

Rule

The Attorney General has the discretionary authority to detain an alien 'pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States' under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a).

The Attorney General has the discretionary authority to detain an alien 'pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States' under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a).

Analysis

The court determined that Prieto-Romero's detention was governed by 1226(a) because his removal order was administratively final but stayed pending judicial review. The court held that his continued detention was statutorily authorized as he did not establish that there was no likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court also found that he was not denied due process during his bond hearings.

The court determined that Prieto-Romero's detention was governed by 1226(a) because his removal order was administratively final but stayed pending judicial review. The court held that his continued detention was statutorily authorized as he did not establish that there was no likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court also found that he was not denied due process during his bond hearings.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that Prieto-Romero's continued detention was authorized by statute.

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that Prieto-Romero's continued detention was authorized by statute.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Prieto-Romero's continued detention was statutorily authorized under 1226(a).

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Prieto-Romero's continued detention was statutorily authorized under 1226(a).

You must be