The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JESSE SAINT JACQUES, Civil No. 1:21-cv-1144
Petitioner . (Judge Mariani)
v. .
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, ef al.,
Respondents .
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Jesse Saint Jacques is an immigration detainee in the custody of the
United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). According to Respondents, he is currently being detained at the Krome North
Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida.! Last month, Saint Jacques commenced this
action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). He
seeks immediate release from detention or, alternatively, an individualized bond hearing.
Saint Jacques’ petition is fully briefed and ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will deny habeas relief.
1 At the time that Saint Jacques filed the instant habeas corpus petition, he was being detained
at the York County Prison, located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Factual Backgiouna
Saint Jacques is a citizen and native of Haiti. (See Doc. 1 at p. 3; Doc. 12-1 at p. 3).
He became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in January 2010. (Doc. 1 at p.
3; Doc. 12-1 at p. 3). In August and September 2019, Saint Jacques was convicted in state
court for terroristic threats, in violation of Section 2706(a)(1) of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes. (Doc. 12-1 at pp. 3, 6). He was sentenced to 36 months’
incarceration and 23 months’ incarceration, respectively. (/d. at p. 8). Following release
from prison, Saint Jacques was taken into ICE custody on August 3, 2020. (/d. at p. 7).
Saint Jacques was charged as removable under Sections 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii). (Doc. 12-1 at p. 9). He
challenged his removal, but his claim2 was denied by an immigration judge on March 5,
2021, and he was ordered removed to Haiti. (/d. at pp. 13-14). He appealed this decision
to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), (Doc. 12-1 at 25-28), which appeal remains
pending, (see Doc. 12 at 3).
Saint Jacques and Respondents agree that he is being detained pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1226(c). (See Doc. 1 at p. 4; Doc. 12 at 3-4). And it is undisputed that he has
been detained by ICE for slightly less than 14 months. The gravamen of Saint Jacques’
a Saint Jacques initially sought to avoid removal through an application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Doc. 12-1 at 19).
However, he subsequently withdrew his claims for asylum and withholding of removal and pursued relief
only under CAT. (/d.).
habeas petition is that his mandatory, pre-removal detention without a bail hearing has
become unreasonable and thus unconstitutional.
Il. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a prisoner or detainee may receive habeas relief only if
he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). Because Saint Jacques
‘filed the instant petition while he was detained within the jurisdiction of this Court, is still
currently detained by ICE, and asserts that his continued detention violates due process,
this Court has jurisdiction over his Section 2241 petition. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678, 699 (2001); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).
lll. Discussion
In Jennings v. Rodriguez, __ U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), the Supreme Court of
the United States rejected the premise that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) contains an implicit time limit
for pre-removal detention. Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 846-47. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, however, has explained that Jennings “did not call into
question [the] constitutional holding in Diop [v. |CE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 221 (3d
Cir. 2011)] that detention under § 1226(c) may violate due process if unreasonably long.”
Borhat v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 2018). Thus,
“even after Jennings, an alien lawfully present but detained under § 1226(c) can still
challenge his detention under the Due Process Clause.” German Santos v. Warden Pike
Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2020).
When reviewing such as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of continued
mandatory detention under Section 1226(c), “[t]he most important factor is the duration of
detention.” See id. at211. Additionally, the Court must consider the other circumstances of
detention, including: (1) “whether the detention is likely to continue”; (2) “the reasons for the
delay, such as a detainee’s request for continuances”; and (3) “whether the alien's
conditions of confinement are ‘meaningfully different’ from criminal punishment.” /d.
(quoting Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 478 (3d Cir. 2015)).
There is no “bright-line” threshold for reasonableness; rather, whether continued detention
is reasonable is a “highly fact-specific” inquiry. /d. at 210 (quoting Chavez-Alvarez, 783
F.3d at 474).
At the outset, the Court notes that it cannot grant Saint Jacques’ requested relief of
immediate release from custody. Rather, the Court is limited to resolving whether, under
the German Santos factors, Saint Jacques is entitled to an individualized bond hearing to
determine if “detention is still necessary to fulfill [Section 1226(c)]’s purposes of ensuring
that an alien attends removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger to the
community.” Diop, 656 F.3d at 231. The Court will take each factor in turn.
With respect to the first, and most important, consideration—duration of detention—
Saint Jacques has been detained in ICE custody since August 4, 2020, a little less than 14
months. District courts in this circuit have frequently found that detention under Section
1226(c) for just over a year does not, in itself, amount to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty or
weigh in favor of habeas relief. See Gabriel v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-1054, 2021 WL 268996, at
*3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2021) (collecting cases). The decisions cited in Gabriel stand in
contrast to cases where detention was approaching, or exceeded, two years in length. See,
e.g., German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212 (two-and-a-half years’ detention); Clarke v. Doll, No.
3:20-cv-31, 2020 WL 4933696, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2020) (20 months); Chikerema
v. Lowe, No. 1:18-cv-1031, 2019 WL 3891086, (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2019) (over 20 months):
Vega v. Doll, No. 3:17-cv-1440, 2018 WL 3756755, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2018) (Mannion,
J.) (21 months). Consequently, Saint Jacques’ duration of detention—less than 14
months—does not weigh in favor of relief.
As to whether detention will continue, the Court finds that Saint Jacques’ detention
will likely continue into the foreseeable future. His appeal is still pending before the BIA,
and even if he were to receive an unfavorable decision from the BIA, he could then seek
relief from the Third Circuit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). This factor supports a finding of
unreasonableness. See German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212.
The reasons for delay provide no support for Saint Jacques’ petition. There is no
evidence that the government has unreasonably delayed the immigration proceedings, nor
that Saint Jacques is operating in anything other than good faith in his pursuit of relief from
removal. Saint Jacques notes that the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in multiple
continuances, (see Doc. 1 at p. 4), but such delay was unavoidable and cannot be attributed
to either party. Consequently, this factor does not advance Saint Jacques’ as-applied
challenge.
The final factor to be considered is whether the petitioner's conditions of confinement
are “meaningfully different’ from criminal punishment.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211
(quoting Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478). Respondents provide no evidence, details, or
elucidation on Saint Jacques’ current conditions of confinement other than to state that he is
“not in a cell let alone a prison[; h]e is in an ICE detention center.” (Doc. 12 at 17). While
that may be true, Respondents do not explain how such detention-center conditions differ
from those found in a prison setting. Nevertheless, it must also be noted that Saint Jacques
has failed to even mention this factor. Accordingly, this final consideration does not support
either side’s argument.
When reviewing the totality of the circumstances, as discussed above, the Court
concludes that relief is not warranted. The German Santos factors, on whole, do not militate
in favor of finding that Saint Jacques’ continued mandatory detention under Section 1226(c)
is unreasonable and thus unconstitutional. Only one of the four factors supports Saint
Jacques’ claim. Nonetheless, should this detention become prolonged to the point where it
does become unreasonable, Saint Jacques may file a new Section 2241 petition in the
appropriate court.
IV. Conciusion
The Court will deny Saint Jacques’ petition (Doc. 1) for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice to his right to file a new petition in the
appropriate court should his detention become unreasonable. A separate Order shall issue.
oc il \) eS
CF
FG; | AtUMAU
Robert D-Mariani
United States District Judge
Dated: September XS , 2021