This case involves a father and husband who fled political persecution in Russia with his family and sought asylum at a U.S. port of entry. The U.S. government allowed him into the country, released him pending his removal proceedings, and granted him work authorization. After he had been living at liberty and complying with all his immigration obligations for almost three years, immigration officers arrested him after a traffic stop and held him for months for no apparent reason. He had no opportunity for any review of his detention, let alone a hearing where a judge could weigh whether re-detaining him absent any change in his circumstances was necessary.
After he filed a pro se habeas petition in federal court, a district court in South Dakota appointed him counsel and granted his habeas petition and ordered him released, holding that his detention with no individualized review violated the Fifth Amendment.
The government appealed to the Eighth Circuit, and sought expedited review, which the court denied. The government argues that all noncitizens who have not been formally admitted to the United States must be detained throughout their removal proceedings, regardless of whether an individual actually poses a flight risk or a danger. A ruling for the government would mean that across the seven states of the Eighth Circuit, anyone deemed an “applicant for admission” — including people whom immigration authorities previously found not to be a danger or flight risk, and people with strong ties to the country and no criminal record, like Petitioner in this case — could be jailed for the entirety of their immigration case with no opportunity to make the case to a neutral decision-maker that their detention is unjustified.
Petitioner is represented by the American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Project, and James D. Leach, Attorney at Law.
