The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JHONNATAN A. COTO-HENRIQUEZ, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-271
:
Petitioner : (Judge Conner)
:
v. :
:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND :
SECURITY, et al., :
:
Respondents :
MEMORANDUM
This is a habeas corpus case filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner,
Jhonnatan A. Coto-Henriquez, who is detained by United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in Pike County Correctional Facility pending
proceedings to remove him from the United States, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
requiring the government to conduct a bond hearing or release him from detention.
We will dismiss the petition.
I. Factual Background & Procedural History
Coto-Henriquez was taken into custody by ICE in or around April 2022. (See
Doc. 1-1 at 4; Doc. 1-2 at 5). He requested release on bond on April 14, 2022,
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8). (Doc. 1-2 at 5). The request was denied by an
immigration judge (“IJ”) on April 27, 2022, based on a conclusion that Coto-
Henriquez presented a danger to the community and a flight risk. (Id.)
Coto-Henriquez filed a request for bond redetermination on October 6, 2022,
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1), arguing that his circumstances had materially
changed to support a bond redetermination. (Doc. 1-2 at 5). The IJ denied the
request without a hearing on October 12, 2022. (Id.) Coto-Henriquez appealed to
the Board of Immigration Appeals on October 19, 2022, and filed a second request
for bond redetermination on October 20, 2022. (Id. at 6). The IJ denied the second
bond redetermination request without a hearing on November 2, 2022. (Id.) Coto-
Henriquez again appealed, through counsel, to the BIA. (Id.) His appeals were
denied on February 3, 2023. (See Doc. 1-1 at 3).
Coto-Henriquez filed the instant petition on February 8, 2023, and the court
received and docketed it on February 14, 2023. (Doc. 1). Coto-Henriquez argues
that his continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment and seeks a writ of habeas corpus compelling the government to
provide him a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden of proof or
release him from custody. (Id.; Doc. 1-1).
II. Legal Standard
Under Rule 4 of the rules governing habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, a district court must promptly review a petition and dismiss it if it is plain
from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. §
2254 Rule 4. District courts have the discretion to apply this rule in habeas corpus
cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 1.
III. Discussion
We will dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 4. The case is indistinguishable
from and controlled by our court of appeals’ decision in Borbot v. Warden Hudson
Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2018). In Borbot, a petitioner detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) requested bond pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8), but
his request was denied by an IJ. Id. at 275-76. He requested bond redetermination
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1), but the IJ denied the request without a hearing.
Id. The petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that his detention violated the Due Process Clause and
requesting a bond hearing at which the government would bear the burden of
proof. Id. at 276. The district court dismissed the petition, and petitioner appealed.
Id.
The court of appeals affirmed. The court noted that the petitioner’s
argument for a bond hearing was based on two cases—Diop v. ICE, 656 F.3d 221 (3d
Cir. 2011) and Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir.
2015)—where the court analyzed whether due process required the government to
provide bond hearings to noncitizens detained pursuant to the mandatory detention
provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Borbot, 906 F.3d at 277. The court rejected this
argument, noting that reliance on Diop and Chavez-Alvarez was inappropriate for
petitioners detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 278. The court noted that
in contrast to detainees detained pursuant to Section 1226(c), detainees detained
pursuant to Section 1226(a) are statutorily entitled to a prompt bond hearing and
can request bond redeterminations by showing that their circumstances have
materially changed. Id. at 278-79. Thus, the court held that the petitioner was not
entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because the process he was afforded pursuant to
Section 1226(a) satisfied the Due Process Clause. Id. The court also rejected the
petitioner’s argument that the Due Process Clause requires the government to bear
the burden of proof during Section 1226(a) bond hearings. Id. at 279.
Coto-Henriquez is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).1 Like the
petitioner in Borbot, he is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he was
afforded all due process required by Section 1226(a) and its implementing
regulations, including an initial bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8) and
the opportunity to request bond redetermination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1).
See Borbot, 906 F.3d at 278-79. His argument that the government must bear the
burden of proof in Section 1226(a) bond hearings likewise fails under Borbot. See
id. at 279. Hence, we will dismiss the petition because it is clear under Borbot that
Coto-Henriquez is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
1 Coto-Henriquez’s petition does not specify which statutory provision
justifies his detention, but he appears to argue that he is detained pursuant to
Section 1226(c). (See Doc. 1-1 at 2-3). The fact that Coto-Henriquez was provided
an initial bond hearing and was given the opportunity to seek bond redetermination
belies his argument and demonstrates that he is detained pursuant to Section
1226(a) rather than Section 1226(c). Section 1226(c) mandates detention without a
bond hearing of noncitizens who committed certain enumerated crimes. See 8
U.S.C. § 1226(c); Gayle v. Warden Monmouth Cnty. Corr Inst., 12 F.4th 321, 328 (3d
Cir. 2021) (citing Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 954, 959 (2019)). By
contrast, detainees detained pursuant to Section 1226(a) are entitled to initial bond
hearings and may seek bond redetermination. Borbot, 906 F.3d at 275. The
government does not have discretion to detain noncitizens pursuant to Section
1226(a) when they are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c). Id. at
279. Accordingly, the fact that Coto-Henriquez was afforded the process required
by Section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations shows that he is detained
pursuant to Section 1226(a) rather than Section 1226(c). Moreover, even if Coto-
Henriquez were detained pursuant to Section 1226(c), the court concludes that he
has been granted sufficient process. See id. at 278-79 (noting that, unlike
petitioners in Diop and Chavez-Alvarez, petitioner in Borbot was granted
meaningful process prior to seeking habeas corpus relief because he was given a
bond hearing).
IV. Conclusion
We will dismiss the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus without
prejudice. An appropriate order shall issue.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: March 2, 2023