## Facts

- Kim Ho Ma, a Cambodian national, entered the United States as a child refugee and later became a lawful permanent resident.
- At age 17, Ma was convicted of manslaughter in Washington state and served about two years in prison.
- After he completed his sentence, immigration authorities detained Ma and initiated removal proceedings based on his conviction as an aggravated felon.
- An immigration judge ordered Ma removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, making the removal order final.
- The United States lacked an effective repatriation arrangement with Cambodia, and Cambodia would not accept Ma’s return.
- Ma remained detained for roughly three years after the removal order became final, despite no realistic prospect of removal in the foreseeable future.
- Ma filed a federal habeas petition challenging his continued post-removal-order detention; the district court ordered his release under supervision, and the government appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorizes the Attorney General to detain a noncitizen indefinitely beyond the 90-day removal period when there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
2. Whether federal courts have habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review a claim that post-order detention exceeds statutory authority.
3. Whether potentially indefinite post-order immigration detention would violate substantive due process (and whether the court must reach that constitutional question).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the order requiring Ma’s release under conditions of supervision.
- The court held that § 2241 habeas jurisdiction permitted review of whether Ma’s detention exceeded statutory authority.
- The court interpreted § 1231(a)(6) to permit detention beyond the removal period only for a reasonable time tied to effectuating removal.
- Because removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Attorney General lacked statutory authority to continue detaining Ma.
- The court affirmed on statutory grounds and declined to decide the constitutional due process issue.

## Legal Principles

- Post-removal-order detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) is authorized only for a reasonable period beyond the 90-day removal period when detention remains reasonably related to the purpose of removal.
- When there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, continued civil immigration detention becomes unauthorized under § 1231(a)(6).
- Courts may apply the canon of constitutional avoidance to construe immigration detention statutes to avert serious constitutional questions raised by indefinite civil confinement.
- Federal habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 extends to claims that immigration detention exceeds statutory authority, not only to constitutional claims.
- If detention is no longer authorized, release may be ordered subject to statutory supervision conditions.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ruled that § 1231(a)(6) does not permit potentially permanent post-removal-order detention when removal is not reasonably foreseeable, and it ordered Ma’s release under supervision while resolving the case on statutory interpretation rather than constitutional grounds.


Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000)