Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, No. 16-35385 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, in which plaintiff sought a custody redetermination as he awaits the outcome of administrative proceedings to determine whether he has a reasonable fear of returning to his native country of El Salvador. The panel held that, because plaintiff's reinstated removal order remains administratively final, he was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a); section 1226(a) has no application in this case; and thus plaintiff was not entitled to a bond hearing.
Court Description: Immigration / Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Raul Padilla-Ramirez’s habeas corpus petition, in which he sought a custody redetermination as he awaits the outcome of administrative proceedings to determine whether he has a reasonable fear of returning to his native country of El Salvador. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) grants the Attorney General discretion to detain an alien pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States, and permits the Attorney General to release the alien on bond or conditional parole. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1), an initial custody determination under section 1226(a) is made by the district director, but the detainee may request an additional bond hearing before an immigration judge. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) provides for mandatory detention during a ninety-day removal period, and discretionary detention beyond the removal period, but the bond hearing authorized under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1) does not apply to detentions authorized under section 1231(a). Padilla-Ramirez’s entitlement to a bond hearing hinged on whether he is detained pursuant to section 1226(a) or section 1231(a). The panel held that reinstated removal orders are administratively final, and that the detention of aliens subject to reinstated removal orders is governed by PADILLA-RAMIREZ V. BIBLE 3 section 1231(a), rather than section 1226(a). Padilla-Ramirez was therefore not entitled to a bond hearing. The panel noted that its decision creates a circuit split with the Second Circuit’s decision in Guerra v. Shanahan, 831 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2016).
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 15, 2018.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.