Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 20-2633

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtRESTREPO, Circuit Judge.
Citation17 F.4th 434
Parties Angel Argueta ANARIBA, Appellant v. DIRECTOR HUDSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER
Docket NumberNo. 20-2633,20-2633
Decision Date03 November 2021

17 F.4th 434

Angel Argueta ANARIBA, Appellant
v.
DIRECTOR HUDSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER

No. 20-2633

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued April 21, 2021
Opinion Filed: November 3, 2021


Elyssa N. Williams [ARGUED], The Bronx Defenders, 360 E. 161st Street, Bronx, NY 10451, Counsel for Appellant

Victor M. Mercado-Santana [ARGUED], United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044, Counsel for Appellee

Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, Circuit Judges, and NOREIKA* , District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.

Angel Argueta Anariba, a native and citizen of Honduras, has been detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") since December 2014. Over the course of his now approximately 82-month ICE detention, Argueta has been transferred at least 15 times to 6 different facilities in 4 different states.

In March 2019, Argueta filed the underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking relief from continued detention. At the time of his filing, Argueta was detained at the Hudson County Correctional Facility in Kearny, New Jersey. The District Court denied Argueta's petition without prejudice, reasoning that the statutory scheme under which Argueta was detained subjected him to a mandatory detention period and thus rendered him ineligible for the immediate release requested. Over six months later, in April 2020, Argueta – who in the interim had been transferred to a detention facility outside of New Jersey – filed a motion in the District Court to reopen his § 2241 petition. The District Court denied Argueta's motion in July 2020. Finding that Argueta's motion raised new claims, the District Court construed his filing as a new habeas petition over which it lacked jurisdiction to consider for reasons stemming from ICE's transfer of Argueta to a detention facility outside of its territorial jurisdiction. Argueta appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse the District Court's order and remand for further proceedings.

I.

A.

Argueta entered the United States in 1998, at the age of 20. Settling in Washington, D.C., Argueta became involved in his community, started a family, and was employed in construction and carpentry. In 2007, Argueta got into an altercation with a former employer over the late payment of wages. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated assault under D.C. Code § 22-404.01 and sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment. In December 2014, Argueta was released early for good behavior, having served all but approximately two years of his sentence. He was transferred directly into ICE custody.

17 F.4th 437

The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") immediately thereafter initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (removal due to being present without admission or parole) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (removal due to conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude). Argueta admitted inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The Immigration Judge ("IJ") rejected Argueta's claims, in part on the ground that Argueta's conviction for aggravated assault "constituted an aggravated felony crime of violence as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)." J.A. 24, ¶ 34. The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed.

In October 2015, Argueta filed a petition for review and a motion to stay removal in the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit remanded Argueta's case to the BIA following the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018) (holding that § 16(b) as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutionally vague). The BIA reopened Argueta's removal proceedings and remanded the case to the IJ. In March 2019, the IJ denied Argueta's petition for relief. The BIA affirmed on August 23, 2019, and Argueta again petitioned the Second Circuit for review. It granted Argueta a stay of removal in June 2020; his petition for review remains pending. See Argueta Anariba v. Att'y Gen. (No. 19-2862).

B.

In December 2015, approximately twelve months into his ICE custody, Argueta requested a bond hearing pursuant to Lora v. Shanahan , 804 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. granted , judgment vacated , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1260, 200 L.Ed.2d 415 (2018). The IJ determined that Argueta's detention fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and thus he did not have jurisdiction to hold a bond hearing. Argueta subsequently filed a habeas petition in the Southern District of New York. Finding that Argueta's detention was instead pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the District Court granted Argueta's petition and directed the IJ to hold a bond hearing. See Argueta Anariba v. Shanahan , 190 F. Supp. 3d 344, 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

By October 2016, Argueta's bond hearing still had not occurred. The District Court again ordered the IJ to conduct a bond hearing, which he did but applied the incorrect legal standard. This resulted in the District Court remanding the case for clarification, and, in August 2017, approximately 20 months into Argueta's ICE detention, the IJ denied Argueta bond "based on a finding of dangerousness to the community and flight risk." J.A. 27, ¶ 47.

In March 2019, Argueta – well into his 51st month of ICE detention, and approximately 19 months following his August 2017 bond hearing – filed the underlying habeas petition in the District of New Jersey. At the time of filing, Argueta was detained at the Hudson County Correctional Facility in Kearny, New Jersey. Argueta's petition centered on allegations that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The sole relief that Argueta sought was his immediate release from detention.

On October 1, 2019, the District Court dismissed Argueta's petition without prejudice. Concluding that the statutory scheme under which Argueta was being held had switched from § 1226 to § 1231 on August 23, 2019 (i.e. , when the BIA affirmed the IJ's post- Dimaya denial of Argueta's petition, thus making his removal order administratively

17 F.4th 438

final), the District Court found that Argueta was subject to § 1231 ’s mandatory 90-day detention period and thus ineligible for the relief he sought. In doing so, it signaled that Argueta could file a motion to reopen should there be a change in the statutory scheme governing his detention. Yet it also hinted that Argueta's claims would continue to fall short for at least the "presumptively reasonable" six-month detention period following the lapse of § 1231 ’s 90-day window. J.A. 10 n.3 (citing Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) and Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison , 905 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2018) ). On the same day as the District Court's decision, the Government transferred Argueta to a facility outside of New Jersey.

C.

In April 2020, Argueta – then detained at an ICE facility in Louisiana – filed a motion to reopen the habeas proceedings in the District of New Jersey.1 Pointing to the District Court's decision as "expressly permitt[ing] [him] to seek reopening if his detention continued" beyond both § 1231 ’s 90-day period and the "presumptively reasonable" six-month period, Argueta claimed that reopening was "required" at this point to address the alleged constitutional impermissibility of his continued detention. Pet'r’s Mot. to Reopen Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 17 ("Mot. to Reopen") 2-3 (internal quotations omitted). He further argued that the COVID-19 outbreak, coupled with his medical conditions, amplified the urgency and necessity of his immediate release. While the motion was pending, the Second Circuit granted a stay of removal; Argueta informed the District Court accordingly.

The Government opposed Argueta's motion. According to the Government, the motion raised two new habeas claims that were not otherwise included in his original petition: "1) that his conditions of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic violate his constitutional rights and warrant[ ] immediate release; and 2) that his detention under § 1231(a)(6) has exceeded six months under Zadvydas and Guerrero-Sanchez and warrants immediate release." Opp. to Pet'r’s Mot. to Reopen 1, 11. The Government urged the District Court to find that the immediate custodian rule pursuant to Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004), foreclosed the District Court's ability to exercise jurisdiction over these new claims, as the Government no longer was detaining Argueta in New Jersey. Relatedly, it reasoned that any change in the statutory scheme governing Argueta's detention occurred not only after the District Court closed the matter but also after he was removed from New Jersey, and any suggestion that the District Court "retained jurisdiction as if this matter had never been adjudicated to its conclusion" was baseless. Id. at 11. Furthermore, if the District Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Dirauf v. Berger, 21-1044
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 28, 2022
    ...(quotation marks and citation omitted)). "However, we review questions of law de novo." Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 439 (3d Cir. 2021). [6] Defendants' complaints about two of the District Court's comments do not change the result. First, the Court's sta......
  • Miller v. Mannion, 1:22-CV-00840
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • July 11, 2022
    ...warden . . . has day-to-day control over the prisoner and . . . can produce the actual body.” Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994)). Here, Miller is detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Cente......
  • Suggs v. Warden Loretto FCI, 21-2497
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 16, 2022
    ...the total punishment." [3] Suggs is confined within the Western District of Pennsylvania. See Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2021) (explaining that a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district of confinement). [4] Suggs also argued that his § 922(......
  • Gonzalez v. Smith, Civil Action 20-2844-KSM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • October 18, 2022
    ...it to the same requirements would be ‘inconsistent with' the statute.” (cleaned up)); see also Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 441 (3d Cir. 2021); Parham v. Klem, 496 Fed.Appx. 181, 184 (3d Cir. 2012). A Rule 60(b) motion advances a “claim” if it “seeks to add a new gr......
4 cases
  • Dirauf v. Berger, 21-1044
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 28, 2022
    ...(quotation marks and citation omitted)). "However, we review questions of law de novo." Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 439 (3d Cir. 2021). [6] Defendants' complaints about two of the District Court's comments do not change the result. First, the Court's sta......
  • Miller v. Mannion, 1:22-CV-00840
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • July 11, 2022
    ...warden . . . has day-to-day control over the prisoner and . . . can produce the actual body.” Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994)). Here, Miller is detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Cente......
  • Suggs v. Warden Loretto FCI, 21-2497
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 16, 2022
    ...the total punishment." [3] Suggs is confined within the Western District of Pennsylvania. See Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2021) (explaining that a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district of confinement). [4] Suggs also argued that his § 922(......
  • Gonzalez v. Smith, Civil Action 20-2844-KSM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • October 18, 2022
    ...it to the same requirements would be ‘inconsistent with' the statute.” (cleaned up)); see also Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 441 (3d Cir. 2021); Parham v. Klem, 496 Fed.Appx. 181, 184 (3d Cir. 2012). A Rule 60(b) motion advances a “claim” if it “seeks to add a new gr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT