## Facts

- Luis Felipe Casas-Castrillon, a Colombian citizen, became a lawful permanent resident in 1990.
- After serving a state sentence for auto burglary, immigration authorities detained him in August 2001 and initiated removal proceedings.
- An Immigration Judge found him removable based on two crimes involving moral turpitude, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed in July 2002.
- Casas pursued judicial review and other relief; removal was stayed by court orders for substantial periods while litigation continued.
- Casas remained in continuous federal immigration custody for nearly seven years without a clear, individualized opportunity before a neutral decision maker to contest whether detention was necessary based on flight risk or danger.
- In August 2005, Casas filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging prolonged detention and the lack of an individualized bond hearing; the district court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a noncitizen with a final order of removal whose removal is stayed during a petition for review is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or 8 U.S.C. § 1231.
2. Whether prolonged immigration detention in that posture requires an individualized bond hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess danger and flight risk, and who bears the burden at that hearing.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief and remanded.
- The court held that when a petition for review is pending and removal is stayed, detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1231.
- The court required a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge under § 1226(a).
- At the hearing, the government must justify continued detention by showing the detainee is a danger to the community or a flight risk; otherwise, the detainee must be released on bond or reasonable conditions.

## Legal Principles

- When a final removal order is under judicial review and removal is stayed, detention authority arises under § 1226(a) (discretionary detention with bond procedures), not § 1231 (post-removal-period detention).
- Prolonged civil immigration detention must include meaningful procedural safeguards, including an individualized hearing before a neutral adjudicator addressing danger and flight risk.
- Statutory interpretation may be constrained by constitutional avoidance where a reading would permit effectively indefinite detention without adequate process.
- In prolonged § 1226(a) detention, due process requires that the government bear the burden to demonstrate that continued detention is necessary.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a lawful permanent resident detained for an extended period while seeking judicial review under a stay of removal is detained under § 1226(a) and is entitled to an Immigration Judge bond hearing at which the government must prove continued detention is warranted based on flight risk or danger.


Casas-Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008)