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

attorneymotionleaseparolerespondentliensmotion to dismiss
attorneymotionleaseparolerespondentliensmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Alimi v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Johnson v. Univ. Coll.
View Case »
Sotelo-Salgado; U.S. v.
View Case »
Rodriguez-Fernandez v. Wilkinson
View Case »
Garay v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Quezada v. Hendricks

Facts

Walter Quezada, a native and citizen of Peru, challenges his detention in the custody of DHS. Petitioner emigrated to the United States from Peru in 1981 at the age of 10. On October 22, 1999, after a jury found him guilty of third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, the Superior Court of New Jersey sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate seven-year term of incarceration. Petitioner completed serving his sentence for these offenses on May 11, 2000. Six years later, in 2006, Petitioner pled guilty to a second set of offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate eight-year term of imprisonment. He was released on parole on February 8, 2010, at which time DHS took him into custody and served him with a Notice to Appear for removal.

Walter Quezada, a native and citizen of Peru, challenges his detention in the custody of DHS. Petitioner emigrated to the United States from Peru in 1981 at the age of 10. On October 22, 1999, after a jury found him guilty of third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, the Superior Court of New Jersey sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate seven-year term of incarceration. Petitioner completed serving his sentence for these offenses on May 11, 2000. Six years later, in 2006, Petitioner pled guilty to a second set of offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate eight-year term of imprisonment. He was released on parole on February 8, 2010, at which time DHS took him into custody and served him with a Notice to Appear for removal.

Issue

Whether the petitioner's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) after his order of removal became administratively final.

Whether the petitioner's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) after his order of removal became administratively final.

Rule

8 U.S.C. 1226 governs the pre-removal-period detention of an alien, while 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) provides the Attorney General with discretionary authority to detain aliens beyond the removal period.

8 U.S.C. 1226 governs the pre-removal-period detention of an alien, while 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) provides the Attorney General with discretionary authority to detain aliens beyond the removal period.

Analysis

The court determined that since the petitioner's order of removal became administratively final on April 29, 2011, his detention was no longer governed by 1226 but rather by 1231(a)(6). The court noted that a six-month period of detention is presumptively reasonable under 1231(a)(6) and that the petitioner did not demonstrate that his case fell within the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to mootness.

The court determined that since the petitioner's order of removal became administratively final on April 29, 2011, his detention was no longer governed by 1226 but rather by 1231(a)(6). The court noted that a six-month period of detention is presumptively reasonable under 1231(a)(6) and that the petitioner did not demonstrate that his case fell within the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to mootness.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition as moot, concluding that the petitioner's detention was governed by 1231(a)(6) and not 1226.

The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition as moot, concluding that the petitioner's detention was governed by 1231(a)(6) and not 1226.

Who won?

The respondent prevailed in the case because the court found that the petitioner's detention was no longer governed by 1226 and was instead governed by 1231(a)(6), which allows for a presumptively reasonable six-month detention period.

The respondent prevailed in the case because the court found that the petitioner's detention was no longer governed by 1226 and was instead governed by 1231(a)(6), which allows for a presumptively reasonable six-month detention period.

You must be