Id. The operative issue decided by the court in R.I.L.R. was whether Defendants could detain families pursuant to the Attorney General’s binding precedent in Matter Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 41 of 60 Page ID #:2809 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of D-J-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 572 (2003), which held that deterrence of mass migration could be considered in making custody determinations under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court ultimately ruled that Plaintiffs had a significant likelihood of succeeding on their claim that ICE’s consideration of deterrence as a factor in custody decisions was unlawful.

Op. at 17 (construing Zadvydas and Demore); see also Matter of D-J-, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 580-81 (requiring the BIA and IJs to consider standards including the “substantial risk of disappearance into the alien community within the United States”). In addition to the reasons for detention during mass migration discussed above, detention of migrants during these periods also ensures their appearance at further proceedings related to their removal from the United States, thus lessening their flight risk.

An alien detained pending a decision as to whether the alien is to be removed from the United States does not have a right to be released on bond. Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 39 (BIA 2006) (citing Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 534 (1952); Matter of D-J-, 23 I&N Dec. 572, 575 (AG 2003). The Supreme Court has concluded that detention is a normal and lawful part of removal proceedings: “Detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process.”