Tijani v. Willis

430 F.3d 1241, 2005 WL 3370574
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 12, 2005
Docket04-55285
StatusPublished
Cited by69 cases

This text of 430 F.3d 1241 (Tijani v. Willis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241, 2005 WL 3370574 (9th Cir. 2005).

Opinions

NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

As of today’s date, Tijani has been deprived of his liberty by the government for a period of over two years and eight months. ' This deprivation has been inflicted not as the result of any adjudication of crime but as a bureaucratic application of the authority conferred on the Attorney General by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Despite the substantial powers that Congress may exercise in regard to aliens, it is constitutionally doubtful that Congress may authorize imprisonment of this duration for lawfully admitted resident aliens who are subject to removal. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001). The case is distinct from Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 513-514, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003), where the alien conceded deporta-bility.

To avoid deciding the constitutional issue, we interpret the authority conferred by § 1226(c) as applying to expedited removal of criminal aliens. Two years and eight months of process is not expeditious; and the foreseeable process in this court, where the government’s brief in Tijani’s appeal of the removal was only filed last month after two extensions of time, is a year or more. ■ -

We remand to the district court with directions to grant the writ unless the government within 60 days of this order provides a hearing to Tijani before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant him bail unless the government establishes that he is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community. See Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 363, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

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

Related

Doe v. Becerra
N.D. California, 2023
Cancino Castellar v. Mayorkas
S.D. California, 2021
Garfield Gayle v. Warden Monmouth County Corr
12 F.4th 321 (Third Circuit, 2021)
Mansaray v. Mayorkas
D. Maryland, 2021
Romero Romero v. Wolf
N.D. California, 2021
Mohamed v. Barr
D. Minnesota, 2020
Esteban Aleman Gonzalez v. William Barr
955 F.3d 762 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)
Masood v. Barr
N.D. California, 2020
Singh v. Choate
D. Colorado, 2019
Banda v. McAleenan
385 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (W.D. Washington, 2019)
Ramos v. Sessions
293 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. California, 2018)
Hamama v. Adducci
285 F. Supp. 3d 997 (E.D. Michigan, 2018)
Crespin v. Evans
256 F. Supp. 3d 641 (E.D. Virginia, 2017)
Ahad v. Lowe
235 F. Supp. 3d 676 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2017)
Jarpa v. Mumford
211 F. Supp. 3d 706 (D. Maryland, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
430 F.3d 1241, 2005 WL 3370574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tijani-v-willis-ca9-2005.