Montoya-Cruz v. Feeley

348 F. Supp. 3d 116
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York
DecidedDecember 20, 2018
Docket9:18-CV-1410 (DNH/CFH)
StatusPublished

This text of 348 F. Supp. 3d 116 (Montoya-Cruz v. Feeley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Montoya-Cruz v. Feeley, 348 F. Supp. 3d 116 (N.D.N.Y. 2018).

Opinion

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge *117I. INTRODUCTION

Elmis Adalid Montoya-Cruz ("petitioner" or "Montoya-Cruz"), a native and citizen of Honduras, was detained pending potential removal pursuant to Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1226(a). He was detained following an individualized bond hearing during which he bore the burden1 of proving that he was not a flight risk or a danger to the community. The bond hearing was presided over by an Immigration Judge ("IJ"). Mr. Montoya-Cruz is currently pursuing an appeal of that decision, to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). Petitioner, who appears to have no United States criminal history or any prior immigration encounters or history, has now been detained from on or about June 11, 2018, to the present day.

He brings the instant Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the constitutionality of his detention, and specifically, the requirement that he bear the burden of establishing his right to be released on bond. He names as respondents Thomas Feeley, Field Office Director, Buffalo Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); Craig D. Apple, Sr., Sheriff, Albany County Correctional Facility; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice. The United States of America ("the Government") opposes the Petition. Oral argument was heard on December 19, 2018, in Utica, New York. Decision was reserved.

II. BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are largely undisputed. Mr. Montoya-Cruz is a 31 year old native and citizen of Honduras. He entered the United States by train, without inspection at the United States border with Mexico, on June 10, 2018. He was apprehended by immigration authorities almost immediately.

On June 11, 2018, he was arrested by Border Patrol agents and charged with entering the United States illegally.2 Since that day, petitioner has remained in the custody of the respondents. Also on or about June 11, 2018, he was served with a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal.3

Mr. Montoya-Cruz thereafter applied for asylum based upon alleged threats to his life which occurred in Honduras. On August 22, 2018, he had his credible fear interview with an asylum officer from the Arlington Asylum Office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The officer determined petitioner had a credible fear of persecution based on his political opinion, and that he did not appear to be subject to any bars to asylum. The previous Notice and Order of Expedited Removal was then canceled as a result of Mr. Montoya-Cruz's asylum claim.

*118On August 24, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear charging that Mr. Montoya-Cruz was removable from the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), as an immigrant who at the time of application for admission was not in possession of a valid immigrant visa, and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Mr. Montoya-Cruz was then transferred by ICE to the Albany County Jail in Albany, New York.

On October 16, 2018, Mr. Montoya-Cruz appeared via video along with his attorney, before Batavia IJ Philip Montante, for an initial master removal hearing.4 The matter is set to proceed to a full asylum merits hearing on January 3, 2019.

On October 30, 2018, Mr. Montoya-Cruz requested a bond hearing. On November 1, 2018, IJ Montante held a bond hearing. The bond hearing was recorded but not transcribed. IJ Montante issued a detailed oral decision, and a written order noting only that he denied a change in custody status (leaving the bond that U.S. Customs and Border Protection set, at no bond). IJ Montante found that Mr. Montoya-Cruz was a flight risk but did not find that he was a danger to the community.

On November 9, 2018, Mr. Montoya-Cruz filed a notice of appeal with the BIA. The BIA appeal, however, cannot proceed until such time as IJ Montante drafts a "bond memorandum," which explains in writing what he decided at the earlier bond hearing. The bond memorandum has yet to be issued in this matter. Once issued, the BIA will issue a briefing schedule for the attorneys and the appeal will proceed. Petitioner's counsel has advised, based on anecdotal evidence, that the entire BIA bond appeal could take six to eight months to decide and there is no expedited review process available.

Mr. Montoya-Cruz now brings this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his ongoing detention. He filed his Petition in the Northern District of New York, based on his detention at the Albany County Jail, in Albany, New York, located within this District. On December 12, 2018, the undersigned ordered that a response to the Petition be filed by the Government by December 17, 2018, and set the matter for oral argument on December 19, 2018.

On December 13, 2018, ICE moved Mr. Montoya-Cruz, along with 39 other detainees, from the Albany County Jail to ICE's Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York. Petitioner's custodian at the Batavia detention facility is respondent Thomas Feeley.5

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Montoya-Cruz asserts four claims for relief in his § 2241 Petition: (1) an Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") claim asserting that, requiring aliens to bear the burden of proof at 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) bond hearings is contrary to statutory context and legislative history and therefore violates the INA; (2) a constitutional claim asserting that due process prohibits placing the burden of proof on *119aliens at § 1226(a) bond hearings; (3) an Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") claim asserting that BIA precedent requiring aliens to carry the burden of proof at § 1226(a) hearings is arbitrary and capricious; and (4) a due process claim asserting that even if the law placing the burden of proof on him is constitutional, IJ Montante still failed to provide him with a full and fair bond hearing by failing to consider all the evidence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
348 F. Supp. 3d 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montoya-cruz-v-feeley-nynd-2018.