A Challenge to Mandatory Detention

The United States District Court, District of New Jersey ruled in the case of Garfield Gayle, Sheldon Francois, Neville Sukhu v. Janet Napolitano where the issue was whether individuals in removal proceedings are subject to mandatory detention. Mandatory detenetion is "detention without possibility of a bond hearing or any other determination of whether detention is justified based on danger or flight risk."

Plaintiffs were seeking the an order from the court that would prevent "the government from mandatorily detaining them without the opportunity for a fair hearing at which an Immigration Judge ascertains whether they have a substantial challenge to removal and are therefore eligible for an individualized bond hearing."

When the government charges individuals on grounds of removal as enumerated under 8 USC sec. 1226(c) - applying to non-citizens who are "deportable or inadmissible based on specific crimes, including various misdemeanors and minor drug offenses" - they are subjected to mandatory detention. The exception is if an individual can show a very high burden to an IJ that the government is "substantially unlikely to prevail on the charges against them." Mandatory detention can last for months and years.

The Court held that mandatory detention violated the "Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment..unless it is reasonably related to the purpose of ensuring availability for removal and protecting the community, and is accompanied by adequate procedural protection." The Court stated that the government had "inadequate hearing procedures violat[ing] the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that [the government] must provide constitutionally-adequate hearings to Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members - ie, hearings that use the proper standard for when mandatory detention applies and to include adequate notice; place the initial burden on the government to establish prima facie deportability or inadmissibility on a ground that triggers mandatory detention; provide the opportunity for Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members to show that they have substantial challenges to removal and are thus not properly subject to mandatory detention; and provide a contemporaneous record of such proceedings."

For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.

First Circuit Held that Immigration Court Deprived Defendant of Due Process in US v. Miszczuk

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that even though the defendant in US v. Miszczuk was removable based on his past criminal convictions, the Immigration Court failed to put on record any findings of fact or law that substantiated the removal order. The First Circuit highlighted that even though immigration court proceedings are within the executive branch of the government, they are still civil proceedings that must meet the constitutional standards of due process. 


The defendant had been subject to a final order of removal by the Immigration Court. He subsequently did not cooperate with officials to effectuate the deportation back to his native Poland by refusing to sign travel documents. After being detained for five years, the defendant was also charged criminally with "willful failure or refusal to make a timely application in good faith for travel documents necessary to his departure." 


The First Circuit called this an "unusual criminal offense" that provides the defendant the option to request the Court to review the validity of the removal order before he could be brought to trial on the criminal charges. The defendant exercised this option and the First Circuit concluded that "The absence of any findings of fact, or documented application of the facts to the law by the immigration officer in this case may be enough for this Court to find the removal order inadequate and to dismiss the criminal case...Absent clear findings of removability, this Court cannot invent reasons by which the defendant might be lawfully convicted." Therefore, Immigration Court proceedings need to meet procedural and substantive due process requirements. 


Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters