Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, No. 16-35385 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit amended an opinion affirming the district court's judgment denying a habeas corpus petition where petitioner sought a custody redetermination as he awaited 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 reinstated removal orders were administratively final for detention purposes, and that the detention of aliens subject to reinstated removal orders was governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a), rather than section 1226(a). Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing.
Court Description: Immigration / Habeas Corpus. The panel amended an opinion affirming 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 in certain circumstances. However, 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 for detention purposes, and that the detention of aliens subject to reinstated removal PADILLA-RAMIREZ V. BIBLE 3 orders is governed by 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).
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 6, 2017.
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.