§
Matter of Arreola

14 Cited authorities

  1. Saysana v. Gillen

    590 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that § 1226(c) is not triggered until an alien is released from custody for having committed an offense specified in subparagraphs-(D), as opposed to being triggered by release from any type of criminal custody

  2. Quezada-Bucio v. Ridge

    317 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (W.D. Wash. 2004)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that “the mandatory detention statute, I NA § 236(c), does not apply to aliens who have been taken into immigration custody several months or years after they have been released from state custody”

  3. Garcia v. Shanahan

    615 F. Supp. 2d 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the plain language of the statute ... manifests Congress' clear intent that there must be a nexus between the date of release and the removable offense”

  4. Pastor-Camarena v. Smith

    977 F. Supp. 1415 (W.D. Wash. 1997)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plain meaning of the statute indicates that INA § 236(c) applies to aliens immediately after release from custody, and not to aliens released many years earlier

  5. Oscar v. Gillen

    595 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D. Mass. 2009)   Cited 22 times

    Civil Action No. 08-11413-JLT. February 3, 2009. Kerry E. Doyle, Graves Doyle, Jeanette Kain, Kaplan, O'Sullivan Friedman, LLP, Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mark J. Grady, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for Respondent. MEMORANDUM ORDER TAURO, District Judge. In this Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") case, Petitioner Jean Walensky Oscar challenged his confinement without a bond hearing by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. Presently at issue are Petitioner's Motion for Attorney

  6. Duy Tho Hy v. Gillen

    588 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D. Mass. 2008)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required "where the agency has predetermined the issue before it."

  7. Thomas v. Hogan

    CIVIL NO. 1:08-CV-0417 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2008)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that respondents' position "completely ignores the developing body of case law which finds that the date of release from the offense for which the individual is found removable determines whether the individual is entitled to an individualized bond hearing or subject to the mandatory detention provision."

  8. COX v. MONICA

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-0534 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 20, 2007)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding the mandatory detention provision "does not retroactively apply to aliens who were released from custody prior to its effective date because the provision clearly attaches new legal consequences to actions taken before its enactment"

  9. Burns v. Weber

    Civil No.: 09-5119 (JLL) (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010)   Cited 3 times

    Civil No.: 09-5119 (JLL). January 19, 2010 OPINION JOSE LINARES, District Judge This matter comes before the Court by way of Curtis Anthony Burns' ("Petitioner") petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Petition"). Petitioner claims that he is being unlawfully held in custody as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the mandatory detention provision contained in § 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Respondents have

  10. Ortiz v. Napolitano

    667 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (D. Ariz. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    No. CV 009-0045-PHX-MHM. October 19, 2009 Maurice Henri Goldman, Goldman Goldman PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner. Cynthia M. Parsons, U.S. Attorney's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents. ORDER MARY MURGUIA, District Judge Petitioner Guillermo Ortiz filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 8, 2009. (Dkt. # 1). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson, who issued a Report and Recommendation on June 24, 2009, recommending

  11. Section 1227 - Deportable aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1227   Cited 7,906 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

  12. Section 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1226   Cited 3,168 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"

  13. Section 1003.19 - Custody/bond

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.19   Cited 426 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting immigration judges jurisdiction to review custody and bond determinations

  14. Section 1236.1 - Apprehension, custody, and detention

    8 C.F.R. § 1236.1   Cited 178 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing parole where the alien has demonstrated that "such release would not pose a danger to property or persons" and he or she "is likely to appear for any future proceeding"