Gordon v. Lynch, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Gordon v. Lynch, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gordon-v-lynch-1st-cir-2015 1/107

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1994

LEI TI CI A CASTAÑEDA,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ee,

v.

STEVE SOUZA, Super i nt endent , Br i st ol Count y House ofCor r ect i ons, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y and hi s successor s and

assi gns,

Respondent , Appel l ant ,

BRUCE E. CHADBOURNE, Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or , Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce,Of f i ce of Detent i on and Removal , U. S. I mmi gr at i ons and Cust oms

Enf orcement , U. S. Depart ment of Homel and Secur i t y, i n hi sof f i ci al capaci t y and hi s successor s and assi gns; J OHN T.

MORTON, Di r ect or , U. S. I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms Enf orcement , U. S.Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y and

hi s successor s and assi gns; J EH J OHNSON, Secr et ar y, U. S.

Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y andhi s successor s and assi gns; ERI C H. HOLDER, J R. , At t or neyGener al , U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y

and hi s successor s and assi gns,

Respondent s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

No. 13- 2509

CLAYTON RI CHARD GORDON, on behal f of hi msel fand ot her s si mi l ar l y si t uat ed,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ee,



- 2 -

PRECI OSA ANTUNES; GUSTAVO RI BEI RO FERREI RA;VALBOURN SAHI DD LAWES; NHAN PHUNG VU,

Pet i t i oner s,

v.

ERI C H. HOLDER, J R. , At t orney General ; SARAH SALDANA, Di r ect orof I mmi grat i on and Cust oms Enf or cement ; SEAN GALLAGHER, Act i ng

Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or ; CHRI STOPHER J . DONELAN; MI CHAEL G.BELLOTTI , Sher i f f ; STEVEN W. TOMPKI NS, Sher i f f ; THOMAS M.

HODGSON, Sher i f f ; J OSEPH D. MCDONALD, J R. , Sher i f f ; RAND BEERS,Act i ng Secr et ar y of Homel and Secur i t y,

Respondent s, Appel l ant s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mi chael A. Ponsor , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef oreHowar d, Chi ef J udge,

Tor r uel l a, Lynch, Thompson, Kayat t a, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Leon Fresco, Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Of f i ce ofI mmi gr at i on Li t i gat i on, wi t h whom Sar ah B. Fabi an, Seni orLi t i gat i on Counsel , Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Ci vi lDi vi si on, Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i on Li t i gat i on, El i ani s N. Per ez,Seni or Li t i gat i on Counsel , J oyce R. Br anda, Act i ng At t or neyGener al , Benj ami n C. Mi zer , Act i ng Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al ,Ci vi l Di vi si on, Wi l l i amC. Peachy, Di r ector , Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i onLi t i gat i on, Di st r i ct Cour t Secti on, El i zabet h St evens, Assi st antDi r ect or , Hans. H. Chen, Tr i al At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f orr espondent s- appel l ant s.

Gr egor y Romanovsky, wi t h whomLi vi a Lungul escu and Romanovsky

Law Of f i ces wer e on br i ef , f or pet i t i oner - appel l ee Cast añeda.Mat t hew R. Segal , wi t h whom Adr i ana Laf ai l l e, Amer i can Ci vi lLi ber t i es Uni on Foundat i on of Massachuset t s, J udy Rabi novi t z,Mi chael Tan, Anand Bal akr i shnan, ACLU Foundat i on I mmi gr ant s’Ri ght s Pr oj ect , El i zabet h Badger , and Ki ds i n Need of Def ense c/ oNut t er McCl ennan & Fi sh LLP, wer e on br i ef , f or pet i t i oner - appel l eeGordon.

Al i na Das, Esq. , and Washi ngt on Squar e Legal Ser vi ces, I nc. ,



- 3 -

I mmi gr ant Ri ght s Cl i ni c, on br i ef f or I mmi gr at i on Law Pr of essor s,Amer i can I mmi grat i on Lawyer s Associ at i on, Bost on Col l ege Law SchoolI mmi grat i on Cl i ni c, Bost on Uni ver s i t y Law School I nt er nat i onalHuman Ri ght s Cl i ni c, Det ent i on Wat ch Net work, Fami l i es f or Fr eedom,Greater Bost on Legal Ser vi ces, Harvard I mmi grat i on and Ref ugeeCl i n i c a l Program, I mmi gr ant Def ense Pr oj ect , I mmi gr ant LegalResour ce Cent er , I mmi gr ant Ri ght s Cl i ni c, Nat i onal I mmi gr ant

J ust i ce Cent er , Nat i onal I mmi grat i on Pr oj ect of t he Nat i onalLawyer s Gui l d, Po l i t i c a l Asyl um/ I mmi grat i on Repr esent at i onPr oj ect , Suf f ol k Uni ver s i t y Law School I mmi grat i on Law Cl i ni c, andUni ver s i t y of Mai ne School of Law I mmi gr ant and Ref ugee Ri ght sCl i ni c, as ami ci cur i ae i n suppor t of pet i t i oner s- appel l ees and i nsuppor t of af f i r mance.

Mat hew E. Pr i ce, Li ndsay C. Har r i son, and J enner & Bl ock LLP,on br i ef f or ami ci cur i ae For mer I mmi gr at i on J udges and Depart mentof Homel and Secur i t y Of f i ci al s i n suppor t of pet i t i oner s-appel l ees.

Opi ni on En Banc

December 23, 2015



- 4 -

The j udgment s ent er ed i n t he di st r i ct cour t s ar e

af f i r med by an equal l y di vi ded en banc cour t . See Savard v. Rhode

I sl and, 338 F. 3d 23, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( en banc) .

Opi ni ons f ol l ow.

BARRON, Circuit Judge, with whom TORRUELLA and THOMPSON,

Circuit Judges, join. Congr ess has l ong gi ven t he At t orney General

di scr et i on t o deci de whet her t o take al i ens who ar e subj ect t o

r emoval i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody. Congr ess al so has l ong gi ven

t he At t or ney Gener al di scr et i on t o deci de whet her t o r el ease on

bond al i ens who are i n i mmi gr at i on cust ody whi l e t hei r r emoval

pr oceedi ngs are pendi ng. Near l y t hi r t y year s ago, however ,

Congr ess began enact i ng a successi on of si mi l ar but sl i ght l y

r evi sed i mmi gr at i on det ent i on mandat es t hat l i mi t ed t he At t or ney

Gener al ' s det ent i on di scret i on i n cer t ai n r espect s. These

consol i dated appeal s r equi r e us t o deci de t he scope of t he pr esent

ver si on of t hi s det ent i on mandat e, codi f i ed i n 8 U. S. C § 1226( c) .

Much l i ke i t s pr ecur sor s, t hi s det ent i on mandat e f i r st

di r ect s t hat t he At t or ney Gener al shal l t ake i nt o cust ody cer t ai n

"cr i mi nal al i ens" - - as def i ned by t hei r commi ssi on of speci f i ed

of f enses - - "when [ t hey ar e] r el eased" f r omcr i mi nal cust ody. And,

much l i ke i t s pr ecur sors, t hi s det ent i on mandate t hen bar s t he

At t or ney Gener al f r om r el easi ng cer t ai n al i ens on bond once t hey

have been pl aced i n i mmi gr at i on cust ody. The key poi nt of di sput e



- 5 -

concer ns t he cl ass of al i ens t o whom t hi s bar t o bonded r el ease

appl i es.

We concl ude t hat Congr ess i nt ended f or t he pr esent

det ent i on mandat e t o oper at e l i ke i t s pr ecur sors and t hus t hat i t s

bar t o bonded r el ease appl i es onl y t o t hose speci f i ed cr i mi nal

al i ens whom t he At t or ney Gener al t ook i nt o cust ody "when [ t hey

wer e] r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody. We f ur t her concl ude t hat

t he t wo al i ens who br i ng t hese habeas pet i t i ons were not t aken

i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody "when [ t hey wer e] r el eased" f r omcr i mi nal

cust ody because t hey had been r el eased f r omcr i mi nal cust ody year s

bef or e t hei r i mmi gr at i on cust ody st ar t ed. As a r esul t , we concl ude

t hat t he pr esent det ent i on mandat e does not bar ei t her pet i t i oner

f r om seeki ng r el ease on bond pur suant t o t he At t or ney Gener al ' s

di scr et i onar y rel ease aut hor i t y.

Two di st r i ct cour t s of t hi s Ci r cui t r eached t he same

concl usi on i n gr ant i ng t he pet i t i oner s t he r i ght t o an

i ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ng at whi ch t hey coul d seek r el ease pr i or

t o t he compl et i on of t he r emoval pr ocess. See Gordon v. J ohnson,

991 F. Supp. 2d 258 ( D. Mass. 2013) ; Cast añeda v. Souza, 952 F.

Supp. 2d 307 ( D. Mass. 2013) . A panel of t hi s Ci r cui t af f i r med.

See Cast añeda v. Souza, 769 F. 3d 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Thi s Cour t

t hen agr eed to r ehear t he case en banc, and i s now, by a vot e of

t hr ee t o t hr ee, evenl y di vi ded. I n consequence, t he j udgment s of

t he di st r i ct cour t s are af f i r med, as we bel i eve they shoul d be



- 6 -

gi ven Congr ess' s evi dent i nt ent i on not t o deny al i ens l i ke

pet i t i oners t he chance t o seek bonded r el ease, t he consequent i al

nat ur e of t he deci si on t o deny al i ens such a chance, and t he

r eal i t y t hat r emoval pr oceedi ngs can st r et ch on f or mont hs or even

year s.

I.

The key par t s of t he I mmi grat i on and Nat ural i zat i on Act

ar e codi f i ed i n 8 U. S. C. § 1226, and, i n par t i cul ar , t wo

subsecti ons of i t : ( a) and ( c). 1 Thr ough subsect i on ( a) , Congr ess

gave t he At t or ney General br oad di scr et i on to deci de whet her t o

t ake i nt o cust ody an al i en who i s i n t he r emoval pr ocess. Congr ess

al so gave t he At t orney General , t hr ough t hat same subsect i on, br oad

di scr et i on t o rel ease on bond t hose al i ens whom she had pl aced i n

cust ody so t hat t hey woul d not have to be detai ned f or t he of t en

l engt hy r emoval pr ocess. 2

1 Thi s aut hor i zat i on, l ocat ed i n 8 U. S. C. § 1226( a) , pr ovi des:"On a war r ant i ssued by t he At t orney General , an al i en may bear r est ed and det ai ned pendi ng a deci si on on whet her t he al i en i st o be removed f r om t he Uni t ed St at es. Except as provi ded i nsubsect i on ( c) of t hi s sect i on and pendi ng such deci si on, t he

At t or ney Gener al . . . may cont i nue to det ai n t he ar r est edal i en . . . and . . . may r el ease t he al i en on . . . bond . . . . "

2 Al t hough t he At t or ney Gener al now shar es r esponsi bi l i t i esunder § 1226( a) wi t h t he Secretary of Homel and Secur i t y and t heUnder Secr et ar y f or Bor der and Tr anspor t at i on Secur i t y, seeHomel and Secur i t y Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–296, §§ 402, 441,116 St at . 2135, we wi l l f or conveni ence r ef er t o t hi s aut hor i t y asbei ng vest ed i n t he At t or ney Gener al .



- 7 -

To govern t he exer ci se of t hi s r el ease power , t he

At t or ney Gener al i ssued r egul at i ons pur suant t o subsect i on ( a) .

These r egul at i ons aut hor i ze i mmi grat i on j udges ( subj ect t o r evi ew

by t he Boar d of I mmi gr at i on Appeal s ( BI A) and ul t i mat el y t he

At t orney General ) t o make i ndi vi dual i zed bond determi nat i ons based

on a det ai nee' s f l i ght r i sk and danger t o t he communi t y. See 8

C. F. R. § 1236. 1( c) ( 8) , ( d) ( 1) , and ( d) ( 3) .

As a r esul t of § 1226( a) and i t s i mpl ement i ng

r egul at i ons, t hese t wo pet i t i oner s, Lei t i ci a Cast añeda and Cl ayt on

Gor don, pl ai nl y may be det ai ned f or t he ent i r et y of t he r emoval

pr ocess i f t hey ar e f ound t o pose suf f i ci ent bond r i sks. Ther e i s

a quest i on, however , whet her t hey must be det ai ned f or t he ent i r et y

of t hat pr ocess r egardl ess of t he showi ng t hey coul d make at a

bond hear i ng.

The quest i on ar i ses due t o t he cont est ed scope of t he

l i mi t ed except i on t o § 1226( a) t hat i s car ved out by § 1226( c) .

The except i on appear s i n t wo paragraphs of subsect i on ( c) under

t he si ngl e headi ng, "Det ent i on of Cr i mi nal Al i ens. " 3

3 Sect i on 1226( c) pr ovi des:( c) Det ent i on of cri mi nal al i ens

( 1) Cust ody The At t or ney General shal l t ake i nt o cust ody any al i en who- -

( A) i s i nadmi ssi bl e by reason of havi ng commi t t edany of f ense cover ed i n [ 8 U. S. C. § 1182( a) ( 2) ] ,

( B) i s deport abl e by r eason of havi ng commi t t ed anyof f ense cover ed i n [ 8 U. S. C. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i ) -( i i i ) , ( B) - ( D) ] ,



- 8 -

Toget her , t he paragraphs est abl i sh t he l at est ver si on of

a det ent i on mandat e Congr ess f i r st enact ed i n 1988. I l l egal

I mmi gr at i on Ref or m and I mmi gr ant Responsi bi l i t y Act of 1996

( I I RI RA) , t i t . 111 § 303, Pub. L. No. 104- 208, 110 St at . 3009- 546,

3009- 585. I n each pr i or ver si on, Congr ess requi r ed f i r st t hat t he

At t or ney Gener al "shal l t ake i nt o [ i mmi gr at i on] cust ody any al i en

convi ct ed" of an enumerated f el ony of f ense "upon compl et i on" of

t he al i en' s sent ence ( 1988 mandat e) or "upon [ t he al i en' s] r el ease"

f r om cri mi nal cust ody ( l at er mandat es) . And, i n each pr i or

ver si on, Congr ess t hen r equi r ed t hat t he At t or ney Gener al "shal l

not r el ease such f el on f r om[ i mmi gr at i on] cust ody. " See Ant i - Dr ug

Abuse Amendment s Act of 1988, § 7343( a) , Pub. L. No. 100- 690, 102

St at . 4181, 4470; I mmi gr at i on Act of 1990, § 504( a) , Pub. L. No.

101- 649, 104 St at . 4978, 5049- 50; Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve

( C) i s depor t abl e under [ 8 U. S. C.§ 1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) ] on t he basi s of an of f ense f or whi cht he al i en has been sent enced t o a t erm of i mpr i sonmentof at l east 1 year , or

( D) i s i nadmi ssi bl e under [ 8 U. S. C.§ 1182( a) ( 3) ( B) ] or depor t abl e under [ 8 U. S. C.§ 1227( a) ( 4) ( B) ] ,

when t he al i en i s r el eased, wi t hout r egar d t o whet her t he

al i en i s r el eased on par ol e, super vi sed r el ease, orpr obat i on, and wi t hout r egard t o whether t he al i en may bear r est ed or i mpr i soned agai n f or t he same of f ense.

( 2) Rel ease The At t or ney General may r el ease an al i en descr i bed i npar agr aph ( 1) onl y i f . . . r el ease of t he al i en f r om cust odyi s necessar y t o pr ovi de pr ot ect i on t o a wi t ness . . . .



- 9 -

Deat h Penal t y Act of 1996 ( AEDPA) , § 440( c) , Pub. L. No. 104- 132,

110 St at . 1214, 1277.

The ver si on of t he det ent i on mandat e t hat i s at i ssue

here was enacted i n 1996 and f ol l ows t hi s same st r uct ur e. The

f i r st par agr aph, i dent i f i ed as § 1226( c) ( 1) , appear s under t he

headi ng "Cust ody. " Li ke t he por t i on of t he ear l i er enact ed

det ent i on mandat es t hat cont ai ned t he "upon compl et i on" or "upon

r el ease" cl auses, t hi s par agr aph set s f or t h t he f ol l owi ng cust ody

di r ect i ve: t he At t or ney Gener al "shal l t ake i nt o [ i mmi gr at i on]

cust ody" an al i en who has commi t t ed cer t ai n of f enses or engaged i n

cer t ai n concer ni ng behavi or - - speci f i ed i n subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D)

of ( c) ( 1) - - "when t he al i en i s r el eased, wi t hout r egar d t o whet her

t he al i en i s r el eased on par ol e, super vi sed r el ease, or pr obat i on

. . . . " 4

4 As t hese pet i t i oner s wer e rel eased f r om pr i son sent ences,t her e i s no quest i on t hey were "r el eased" wi t hi n t he meani ng of§ 1226( c) ( 1) . Wi t h r espect t o t he pr eci se r equi r ement t he wor d"r el eased" i mposes, t he Second Ci r cui t r ecent l y hel d i n Lor a v.Shanahan t hat a convi ct ed al i en who r ecei ves a non- carceralsent ence has al so been " r el eased. " Lora v. Shanahan, 2015 WL6499951, at *6 ( 2d Ci r . Oct . 28, 2015) . The Second Ci r cui tconcl uded t hat t hi s i nt er pr et at i on of "r el eased" " avoi dsnul l i f yi ng" t he t r ai l i ng l anguage i n ( c)( 1) , whi ch, t hr ough i t sr ef er ence t o "pr obat i on, " "cl ear l y cont empl at es non- car cer al

sent ences. " I d. I n ef f ect, t he Second Ci r cui t i nt er pr et s"r el eased" t o mean "r el ease f r om t he techni cal cust ody of t hecri mi nal cour t " ( i . e. , at t he end of t he sent enci ng pr oceedi ng) ,a posi t i on t hat t he government has el sewhere advanced. See I n r eWest , 22 I . & N. Dec. 1405, 1408 ( BI A 2000) . I n so doi ng, t heSecond Ci r cui t di d not addr ess t he BI A' s vi ew t hat " r el eased" meanseven r el ease f r om pr e- convi cti on ar r est . See I n r e Kot l i ar , 24 I .



- 10 -

The second paragraph, i dent i f i ed as § 1226( c) ( 2) ,

f ol l ows di r ect l y af t er ( c) ( 1) and appear s under t he headi ng

"Rel ease. " Li ke t he por t i on of t he ear l i er enact ed det ent i on

mandat es t hat cont ai ned t he "such f el on" cl ause, t hi s par agr aph

set s f or t h t he f ol l owi ng bar t o bonded r el ease f r om i mmi gr at i on

cust ody: t he At t or ney Gener al "may rel ease an al i en descr i bed i n

par agr aph ( 1) onl y i f " t he al i en sat i sf i es cer t ai n l i mi t ed cr i t er i a

not at i ssue her e. 5

Under pet i t i oner s' vi ew, ( c) ( 1) and ( c) ( 2) oper at e i n

t andem j ust as t he ear l i er det ent i on mandat es di d. I n consequence

of t he wor ds " when" and " r el eased" i n t he f i r st par agr aph, t he

At t or ney Gener al must t i mel y t ake speci f i ed al i ens comi ng out of

cr i mi nal cust ody i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody. The second par agr aph,

by ref er r i ng t o the pr i or par agr aph, t hen r equi r es t he At t or ney

Gener al not t o r el ease on bond t he speci f i ed al i ens t hat she has

t i mel y t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody f ol l owi ng t hei r r el ease f r om

cri mi nal cust ody i n accor dance wi t h t he di r ect i ve i n ( c) ( 1) .

& N. Dec. 124, 125 (BI A 2007) ; West , 22 I . & N. Dec. at 1410; seeal so Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 14 ( suggest i ng, mor e br oadl y, t hat anal i en coul d be ar r est ed and not convi ct ed and yet st i l l f al l wi t hi n

§ 1226) .5 Al i ens t aken i nt o cust ody pur suant t o § 1226( c) ar e ent i t l ed

t o a "J oseph" hear i ng at whi ch the al i en "may avoi d mandatorydet ent i on by demonst r at i ng t hat he i s not an al i en, was notconvi ct ed of t he pr edi cat e cr i me, or t hat [ U. S. I mmi gr at i ons andCust oms Enf or cement ] i s ot her wi se subst ant i al l y unl i kel y t oest abl i sh t hat he i s i n f act subj ect t o mandat or y det ent i on. "Demore v. Ki m, 538 U. S. 510, 514 n. 3 ( 2003) .



- 11 -

Pet i t i oner s cont end t hat t hi s r eadi ng of § 1226( c) makes

sense not onl y as a mat t er of t ext , st r uct ur e, and hi st or y, but

al so on i t s own t er ms. Pet i t i oner s poi nt t o t he subst ant i ve

di f f er ences between al i ens t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody

"when . . . r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody and t hose al i ens who

are t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody some t i me af t er t hey have been

"r el eased" f r omcr i mi nal cust ody. Pet i t i oner s emphasi ze t hat " t he

exper i ence of havi ng one' s l i ber t y st r i pped away i s dr ast i cal l y

di f f er ent f r om t he exper i ence of not havi ng i t r est or ed. " See

Cast añeda v. Souza, 952 F. Supp. 2d 307, 318 n. 10 ( D. Mass. 2013) .

They al so not e t hat t hei r i nt er veni ng per i od of f r eedom makes i t

possi bl e to t ake account of t hei r post - r el ease conduct i n

eval uat i ng t he f l i ght r i sk or danger t hey may pose. 6 And ami ci

cont end t hat Congr ess had pr act i cal r easons t o l i mi t t he scope of

t he mandat e i n t hi s way, gi ven r esour ce const r ai nt s on detent i on

capaci t y. See Ami cus Br . of Fr m. I mm. J udges and DHS Sec.

Of f i ci al s at 17- 20.

On t he basi s of t hi s r eadi ng of § 1226( c) , pet i t i oner s

cont end t hat t he except i on t o § 1226( a) t hat ( c) car ves out does

not appl y t o t hem due t o t he r emot eness of t hei r r el ease f r om

6 For exampl e, si nce hi s r el ease f r om cr i mi nal cust ody i n

2008, pet i t i oner Cl ayt on Gordon has become a f at her , bought ahouse, devel oped a successf ul busi ness, and worked on a pr oj ect t oopen up a hal f way house f or women. Cast añeda, 769 F. 3d at 40.



- 12 -

cr i mi nal cust ody. 7 Accor di ngl y, pet i t i oner s ar gue t hey may seek

di scret i onar y rel ease on bond under ( a) j ust l i ke any ot her al i en

pl aced i n cust ody by t he At t or ney General pur suant t o t hat

subsect i on.

The government count er s t hat pet i t i oners' ar gument f ai l s

at t he t hr eshol d on t he basi s of t he i nt er pr et at i on of § 1226( c) ( 2)

t hat t he BI A set f or t h i n I n r e Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. 117 ( BI A

2001) . The BI A hel d i n Roj as t hat onl y subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) of

( c) ( 1) ( whi ch enumer at e pr edi cat e of f enses and ot her qual i f yi ng

mi sconduct ) l i mi t ( c) ( 2) . Roj as thus makes the r est of ( c) ( 1) - -

i ncl udi ng t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause and i t s t r ai l i ng

l anguage speci f yi ng what count s as a "r el ease[ ] " f r om cr i mi nal

cust ody - - i r r el evant t o t he appl i cat i on of ( c) ( 2) . See Roj as, 23

I . & N. Dec. at 121 ( "The ' when r el eased' cl ause i s no more a par t

of t he descr i pt i on of an al i en who i s subj ect t o det ent i on t han

ar e t he ot her concl udi ng cl auses. " ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) .

7 Lei t i ci a Cast aneda, a nat i ve of Br azi l , was ar r est ed i nMassachuset t s f or mi sdemeanor possessi on of cocai ne, sent enced t opr obat i on, and r el eased f r omcust ody i n 2008. Cast añeda, 769 F. 3d

at 39. Cl ayt on Gor don, a nat i ve of J amai ca, was ar r est ed i nConnect i cut f or possessi on of cocai ne wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but eand was ther eupon r el eased f r om cust ody i n 2008. I d. at 40.Gordon subsequent l y pl ed gui l t y and recei ved a suspended pr i sonsent ence and t hr ee- year pr obat i onar y t er m i n 2009. Mor e t han f ouryear s af t er t hei r r espect i ve r el eases f r om cri mi nal cust ody, t hegover nment t ook each of t he pet i t i oner s i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust odyand char ged t hem wi t h r emoval due t o t hei r convi ct i ons. I d.



- 13 -

The government cont ends we must def er t o Roj as' s

concl usi on that what ever l i mi t at i ons t he wor ds " when" and

"r el eased" i mpose on § 1226( c) ( 1) do not mat t er f or ( c) ( 2) because

t he t ext of ( c) ( 2) i s not cl ear on t hat key poi nt . The gover nment

cl ai ms we must do so because Roj as r easonabl y const r ued ( c) ( 2) t o

r educe the chance that an al i en wi t h an ( A) - ( D) of f ense mi ght be

r el eased due t o a mi st aken eval uat i on of bond r i sk. The government

t her ef or e ar gues t hat Roj as r equi r es pet i t i oner s' mandat or y

det ent i on wi t hout bond - - not wi t hst andi ng t hei r year s of l i vi ng

f r eel y - - because each pet i t i oner commi t t ed an ( A) - ( D) of f ense and

not hi ng mor e i s r equi r ed f or ( c) ( 2) t o appl y.

I n t he al t er nat i ve, t he gover nment asser t s t hat even i f

Roj as i s wr ong and t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause i s r el evant t o

( c) ( 2) , t he pet i t i oner s wer e i n f act t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody

"when . . . r el eased. " The government argues t hat t he word "when"

i s best r ead i n cont ext t o mean " i f " or "any t i me af t er . " As a

f al l back, t he government argues t hat t he word "when" at most

t r i gger s a dut y t o act pr ompt l y t hat per si st s i ndef i ni t el y. Ei t her

way, t he gover nment ar gues, § 1226( c) ( 2) appl i es t o al i ens wi t h

pr edi cate of f enses who were t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody even

year s af t er t hei r r el ease f r om cri mi nal cust ody. 8

8 Af t er t he panel r ul ed f or t he pet i t i oner s, t he gover nmentschedul ed bond hear i ngs f or each one. Bef ore Cast añeda' s bondhear i ng took pl ace, t he gover nment , of i t s own accor d, concl uded



- 14 -

We consi der each argument i n t ur n. We expl ai n f i r st why

we concl ude that t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause i n § 1226( c) ( 1)

al so modi f i es t he scope of ( c) ( 2) . We t hen expl ai n why we concl ude

t hat t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause i mposes a deadl i ne f or

pi cki ng up an al i en comi ng out of cr i mi nal cust ody that l i mi t s t he

appl i cat i on of ( c) ( 2) ' s bar t o bonded r el ease. 9

II.

We st ar t wi t h t he quest i on whet her we must def er t o

Roj as' s r eadi ng of § 1226( c) ( 2) , under whi ch t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause i n ( c)( 1) i s whol l y i r r el evant t o t he

scope of ( c) ( 2) . I n under t aki ng t hi s i nqui r y, we appl y t he t wo-

t hat she di d not pose a f l i ght r i sk or a danger t o the communi t yand r el eased her . Gordon, by cont r ast , made hi s case t o ani mmi gr at i on j udge at a bond hear i ng, pr evai l ed, and was rel easedas wel l . These deci si ons t o r el ease t he pet i t i oner s do not r endert he pr esent appeal moot . See Syl vai n v. At t orney Gen. of U. S. ,714 F. 3d 150, 161 n. 12 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) .

9 Four ot her ci r cui t s have addr essed t he i ssues we addr essher e. I n Hosh v. Lucer o, 680 F. 3d 375, 378- 381 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ,t he Four t h Ci r cui t cl ai med t o def er t o Roj as. But , cont r a Roj as,Hosh act ual l y assumed t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause l i mi t ed§ 1226( c) ( 2) and concl uded t hat t he word "when" i s not t i me-l i mi t ed - - a vi ew t hat t he BI A has never adopt ed. I n Syl vai n v.At t or ney Gen. of U. S. , 714 F. 3d 150, 161 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) , t he Thi r dCi r cui t avoi ded deci di ng t he meani ng of "an al i en descr i bed i npar agr aph ( 1) " by hol di ng f or t he gover nment on t he basi s of l oss-

of - aut hor i t y pr i nci pl es. Mor e r ecent l y, i n Ol mos v. Hol der , 780F. 3d 1313, 1324 ( 10t h Ci r . 2015) , t he Tent h Ci r cui t def er r ed t oRoj as, as di d t he Second Ci r cui t i n i n Lor a, 2015 WL 6499951, at*6. Numerous di st r i ct cour t s have addr essed t he i ssue, and mosthave gone t he other way. See I mmi g. Law Prof s. et al . Ami cus Br .at A- xxi i - xxi x ( assembl i ng ei ght y- ni ne cases t hat have rej ect edRoj as) .



- 15 -

st ep t est set f or t h i n Chevr on, U. S. A. , I nc. v. Nat ur al Resour ces

Def ense Counci l , I nc. , 467 U. S. 837 ( 1984) . At st ep one, we must

deci de whether Congr ess spoke cl ear l y t o the pr eci se quest i on at

i ssue. I d. at 842. I f so, t hat ends t he mat t er . I d. at 842- 43.

I f not , t hen, at st ep t wo, we must def er t o t he admi ni st er i ng

agency' s i nt er pr et at i on i f i t i s r easonabl e. I d. at 843.

Our f ocus i s on st ep one, whi ch i s where we concl ude

Roj as went wr ong. 10 For whi l e Chevron i s a f amous doct r i ne, much

pr ecedent caut i ons us not t o be so st ar - st r uck by i t t hat we must

def er t o the agency at t he f i r st si gn of uncer t ai nt y about t he

meani ng of t he words t hat Congr ess chose. Rat her , under Chevr on,

we must be mi ndf ul t hat "a st at ut e may f orecl ose an agency' s

pr ef er r ed i nt er pr et at i on despi t e such t ext ual ambi gui t i es i f i t s

st r uct ur e, l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, or pur pose makes cl ear what i t s

t ext l eaves opaque. " See Counci l f or Ur ol ogi cal I nt er est s v.

Bur wel l , 790 F. 3d 212, 221 ( D. C. Ci r . 2015) ( quot i ng Cat awba Cnt y. ,

10 The l i ne bet ween st ep one and st ep t wo of t he Chevr onanal ysi s i s not al ways cl ear . See Saysana v. Gi l l en, 590 F. 3d 7,13- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i n decl i ni ng t o def er t o t he BI A' si nt er pr et at i on of § 1226( c) , t he cour t r el i ed on bot h st ep one andst ep t wo) ; Pat r i ci a M. Wal d, J udi ci al Revi ew i n Mi dpassage: TheUneasy Par t nershi p Bet ween Cour t s and Agenci es Pl ays On, 32 Tul sa

L. J . 221, 243 ( 1996) ( not i ng t hat whet her a case i s deci ded atst ep one depends on "how j udges i dent i f y the pr eci se quest i on ati ssue, si nce at one l evel of gener al i t y t he stat ut e may answer i tunder Chevr on st ep one, but at [ another] l evel t here may be anambi gui t y") . Because we concl ude t hat Congr ess spoke cl ear l y t ot he r el at i onshi p bet ween § 1226( c) ( 1) and ( c) ( 2) , and because t hepr eci se i ssue Roj as deci ded concer ned t hat r el at i onshi p, wer esol ve t hi s i ssue under st ep one.



- 16 -

N. C. v. E. P. A, 571 F. 3d 20, 35 ( D. C. Ci r . 2009) ) ; see al so Chemi cal

Manuf act ur er s Ass' n v. N. R. D. C. , 470 U. S. 116, 126 (1984) ( "We

shoul d def er t o [ t he admi ni st er i ng agency' s vi ew of t he st at ut or y

l anguage] unl ess t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y or t he pur pose and

st r uctur e of t he st at ut e cl ear l y r eveal a cont r ar y i nt ent . ") .

And t hat i s the case her e. I n l i ght of bot h t he Act ' s

st r uct ur e, see F. D. A. v. Br own & Wi l l i amson Tobacco Co. , 529 U. S.

120, 132- 34 ( 2000) ( anal yzi ng t he wor ds of a st at ut e i n vi ew of

t he "overal l st atut ory scheme" at Chevr on st ep one) ; Saysana, 590

F. 3d at 13- 15 ( emphasi zi ng t he st r uct ur e of § 1226( c) i n decl i ni ng

t o def er t o t he BI A' s i nt er pr et at i on by not i ng t hat "t he ' pl ai n

meani ng' of a st at ut or y pr ovi si on i s of t en made cl ear not onl y by

t he wor ds of t he st at ut e but by i t s st r uct ur e") , and t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, see I . N. S. v. Car doza- Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421,

448- 49 ( 1987) ( consi der i ng l egi sl at i ve hi st or y at st ep one of t he

Chevron anal ysi s i n decl i ni ng t o def er t o I mmi gr at i on and

Nat ur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I NS) i nt er pr et at i on of st at ut e) ; Succar v.

Ashcr of t , 394 F. 3d 8, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( "Our vi ew i s t hat wher e

t r adi t i onal doct r i nes of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on have per mi t t ed

use of l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, i t s use i s per mi ssi bl e and even may be

r equi r ed at st age one of Chevr on. " ) , we concl ude t hat Congr ess

pl ai nl y i nt ended f or t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause i n ( c) ( 1) t o

appl y t o ( c)( 2) as wel l .



- 17 -

A.

Roj as i dent i f i ed a cl ear choi ce bet ween t wo possi bl e

r eadi ngs of t he wor ds i n t he cr oss- r ef er ence i n § 1226( c) ( 2) , "an

al i en descr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) . " See Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at

119. Gi ven t he t ext of t he cr oss- r ef er ence, t he al i en t o whom

( c) ( 2) r ef er s i s ei t her ( as Roj as hel d) an al i en who has commi t t ed

an of f ense speci f i ed i n subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) of ( c) ( 1) or ( as

pet i t i oners cont end) an al i en who was t aken i nt o cust ody pur suant

t o the duty i mposed by paragr aph ( 1) as a whol e.

Thi s choi ce mat t er s because i t det er mi nes whet her t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause - - and what ever l i mi t s i t i mposes

t hr ough t he words " when" and " r el eased" - - modi f i es t he scope of

§ 1226( c) ( 2) . I f "an al i en descri bed i n par agr aph ( 1) " r ef er s to

an al i en who was t aken i nt o cust ody pur suant t o t he dut y i mposed

by ( c) ( 1) as a whol e, t hen t he cr oss- r ef er ence woul d not mer el y

r ef er t o an al i en who has commi t t ed an ( A) - ( D) of f ense. I t woul d

i nst ead ref er t o an al i en who has commi t t ed an ( A) - ( D) of f ense and

whomt he At t orney General t ook i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody "when" t he

al i en was "r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody, as t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause set s f or t h t he condi t i ons under whi ch

t hat dut y appl i es. Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 121- 22. And ( c) ( 2) ,

t hen, woul d come i nt o pl ay as a bar t o t he rel ease of onl y t hose

al i ens pi cked up af t er t he dut y i n ( c) ( 1) had been di schar ged.

See i d. at 119 ( not i ng t hat t he cross- r ef er ence i n ( c) ( 2) coul d be



- 18 -

r ead t o "r ef er [ ] t o an al i en who i s t aken i nt o [ i mmi gr at i on

cust ody] ' when t he al i en i s r el eased' ") .

I n our vi ew, t he wor ds " an al i en descr i bed i n par agr aph

( 1) " comf or t abl y suppor t pet i t i oner s' r eadi ng. Consi st ent wi t h

t he or di nar y meani ng of t he wor d "descr i bed, " § 1226( c) ( 2) r ef er s

t o a "ment al i mage, an i mpr essi on, or an underst andi ng of t he

nat ur e and char act er i st i cs, " see Webst er ' s Thi r d New I nt er nat i onal

Di ct i onar y 610 ( 2002) , of t he al i en whom ( c) ( 1) as a whol e cal l s

t o mi nd. And t hus "an al i en descr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) " r ef er s t o

an al i en who has commi t t ed an enumerat ed of f ense and whom t he

At t or ney Gener al has t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody "when . . .

r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody. See al so The Amer i can Her i t age

Di ct i onar y of t he Engl i sh Language 476 ( 5t h ed. 2011) ( def i ni ng

"descr i be" as " [ t ] o convey an i dea or i mpr essi on of " or "[ t ] o t r ace

t he f or m or out l i ne of " ) .

No rul e of gr ammar counsel s agai nst t hi s r eadi ng.

Ant ecedent s t o cross- r ef erences may be f ound i n ver bal and

adver bi al phr ases i n pr i or par agr aphs not j ust because ( as our

col l eagues suggest ) user s of Engl i sh somet i mes use l anguage

awkwardl y. Ant ecedent s t o cr oss- r ef erences may be f ound i n such

pl aces because peopl e al so use l anguage ef f i ci ent l y. 11

11 Accor di ng t o l i ngui st s, "pr obabl y t he most i mpor t ant t hi ngt o under st and" about ant ecedent s " i s t hat [ ant ecedent s] ar e nott he el ement s i n t he t ext but ar e t hose suggest ed by i t , t hose



- 19 -

One thus commi t s no of f ense agai nst t he Engl i sh l anguage

by sayi ng t hat t he nar r at or "descr i bed i n" Fr ost ' s f amous poem i s

t he one who "t ook t he road l ess t r avel l ed, " even though the

nar r at or ' s f i r st - per son account of hi s past act i ons i n t he poem i s

not cast i n what our col l eagues woul d consi der i nher ent l y

descri pt i ve t er ms. And, i n f act , Congr ess has i t sel f r el i ed on

t he "descr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) " f or mul at i on t o r ef er not j ust t o

t he i nher ent l y descr i pt i ve adj ecti val por t i on of t he pr i or

par agr aph but t o t he adver bi al por t i on, t oo. See 28 U. S. C §

1441( c) ( 1) - ( 2) ( i n r ef er r i ng t o an "act i on descr i bed i n par agr aph

( 1) , " Congr ess cl ear l y i nt ended t o capt ur e t he t r ai l i ng adver bi al

por t i on of par agr aph ( 1) , whi ch st at es t hat t he "ent i r e act i on may

be removed i f t he act i on woul d [ot her wi se] be removabl e" ) .

The pet i t i oners' r eadi ng f i nds addi t i onal suppor t i n t he

f act t hat t he t ext of t he cross- r ef er ence does not expr essl y st at e,

as one mi ght have expect ed i f Roj as wer e r i ght , t hat t he onl y par t

of § 1226( c) ( 1) t hat i s r el evant t o ( c) ( 2) i s t he par t t hat

concept s bei ng evoked or const r uct ed i n t he r eader ' s mi nd. " Bonni eLynn Nash- Webber , Anaphora: A Cr oss- Di sci pl i nary Sur vey 6 ( Apr .1977) , ht t p: / / hdl . handl e. net / 2142/ 17886. For di scussi ons abouthow par t s of speech do not di ct at e r esol ut i on of t he l i ngui st i c

i ssue pr esent ed her e, see Bar bar a Lust , I nt r oduct i on, i n 1 St udi esi n t he Acqui si t i on of Anaphor a: Def i ni ng t he Const r ai nt s 9 ( Bar bar aLust , ed. , 1986) ; Rusl an Mi t kov, Anaphor a Resol ut i on § 1. 8, at 17( 2013) ; and Gi l l i an Br own & Geor ge Yul e, Di scour se Anal ysi s 203( 1983) ( of f er i ng exampl es i n whi ch t he ant ecedent i s a par t ofspeech t hat , i f subst i t ut ed i n t o t he pl ace of t he cross- r ef er ence,woul d not yi el d a wel l - const r uct ed sent ence) .



- 20 -

denomi nat es t he ( A) - ( D) of f enses. 12 Rat her t han st r ai ght f or war dl y

r ef er t o "an al i en descr i bed i n subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) , " Congr ess

i nst ead expr essl y r ef er r ed t o "an al i en descr i bed i n par agr aph

( 1) , " even t hough Congr ess si ngl ed out si mi l ar of f enses t o those

set f or t h i n ( A) - ( D) i n t he par al l el det ent i on mandat e set f or t h

el sewher e i n t he I I RI RA. See I I RI RA § 303( b) ( 3) , 110 St at . 3009-

587 ( "The At t or ney Gener al may r el ease t he al i en onl y i f t he al i en

i s an al i en descr i bed i n subpar agr aph ( A) ( i i ) or ( A) ( i i i ) . "

( emphasi s added) ) .

Never t hel ess, we agr ee that , st andi ng al one, t he wor ds

"an al i en descr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) " coul d be r ead as Roj as r eads

t hem. As a t ext ual mat t er , t he "descr i bed i n" l anguage i n t he

cr oss- r ef er ence coul d be r ead t o r ef er t he r eader onl y t o

subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) of par agr aph ( 1) , as t hey pl ai nl y do descr i be

t he al i en i n ( c) ( 1) . One coul d t hus r ead t hi s cr oss- r ef er ence as

12 Our col l eagues ar gue t hat Roj as' s r eadi ng i s r ei nf or ced byt he f act t hat t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause i s not al i gned wi t hsubpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) , as i f t he i ndent at i on means t o tel l t her eader of t he cr oss- r ef er ence i n § 1226( c) ( 2) wher e t o l ook i n( c) ( 1) f or t he ant ecedent . See i nf r a at 72- 73. But we do not seehow t hat f or m of pr esent at i on has any hel pf ul bear i ng on t hemeani ng of ( c) ( 2) ' s cr oss- r ef er ence. The l i mi t s i mposed by t he

uni ndent ed l anguage, i ncl udi ng t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause,af f ect al l al i ens who come wi t hi n t he scope of ( c) ( 1) . Thepr edi cat e of f enses i dent i f i ed i n t he i ndent ed subpar agr aphs, bycont r ast , ser ve as i ndependent t r i gger s. The al i gnment t hus f l owsf r om t he st r uct ur e of ( c) ( 1) wi t hout r egar d t o t he cross- r ef er encei n t he f ol l ow- on par agr aph and t hus of f er s l i t t l e suppor t f orRoj as' s r eadi ng of t hat cross- r ef er ence.



- 21 -

di r ect i ng t he r eader t o i dent i f y t he al i en whom ( c) ( 1) i t sel f

r ef er s t o i n char acter i st i cal l y descr i pt i ve t er ms, r at her t han

di r ect i ng t he r eader t o i dent i f y t he al i en whom ( c) ( 1) as a whol e

cal l s t o mi nd. 13

To det er mi ne i f Congr ess chose bet ween t he t wo possi bl e

ant ecedent s t o t he cr oss- r ef er ence i n § 1226( c) ( 2) , we t hus must

do what Roj as di d: l ook beyond t he wor ds of t he cross- r ef er ence.

See Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 121- 24 ( r evi ewi ng t he st r uct ur e of

t he act i n whi ch § 1226 appear s and i t s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, as

wel l as t he pr edecessor provi si ons to § 1226) . And i t makes

par t i cul ar sense t o do so her e, as t her e i s good r eason t o quest i on

whether Congr ess woul d have i nt ended t o l eave t he pr eci se i ssue

unr esol ved. To f i nd t hat Congr ess di d not i nt end t o choose an

ant ecedent , one woul d have t o bel i eve Congr ess was cont ent t o

l et t he ver y execut i ve br anch of f i ci al s t hat i t di d not t r ust t o

13 Our col l eagues suggest t hat t he Supr eme Cour t hasi nt er pr et ed § 1226( c) as Roj as di d, i nf r a at 74- 75, i n Demor e, 538U. S. at 513. But al t hough t he Supr eme Cour t ci t ed ( c) as a whol ei n t he f i r st sent ence of i t s opi ni on, t he Cour t t hen went on t oquot e i n t hat sent ence t he l eadi ng l anguage of ( c) ( 1) - - "[ t ] heAt t or ney Gener al shal l t ake i nt o cust ody any al i en who" - - wi t houtr ef er enci ng ( i mpl i ci t l y or ot her wi se) any of t he l anguage i n( c) ( 2) . Our col l eagues do not - - and cannot - - ar gue t hat t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause i s i r r el evant t o even ( c) ( 1) . Wet hus do not see how t he Cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o r ef er expr essl y to acl ause t hat obvi ousl y appl i es t o ( c) ( 1) i n i t s f l y- by par aphr asi ngof ( c) ( 1) coul d possi bl y be sai d t o pr ovi de suppor t f or t hegover nment ' s vi ew of t he par t i cul ar i ssue we must deci de, whi ch i st he r el at i onshi p bet ween ( c) ( 1) and ( c) ( 2) . And t hat i spar t i cul ar l y t r ue as t he rel at i onshi p bet ween t he two par agr aphswas not even at i ssue i n Demore.



- 22 -

make cer t ai n det ent i on deci si ons det er mi ne t he ext ent of t hat

di st r ust t hr ough t hei r choi ce bet ween t he two possi bl e

ant ecedent s. See Amer i can Bar Ass' n v. F. T. C. , 430 F. 3d 457, 469

( D. C. Ci r . 2005) ( not i ng t hat "t he sor t of ambi gui t y gi vi ng r i se

t o Chevr on def er ence i s a cr eat ur e not of def i ni t i onal

possi bi l i t i es, but of st at ut or y cont ext " and decl i ni ng t o def er t o

an agency' s i nt er pr et at i on gi ven t he sor t of ambi gui t y at

i ssue ( quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . Accor di ngl y,

bef ore we concl ude t hat Congr ess di d not speak t o t hi s i ssue, we

need t o consi der t he r el evant wor ds i n cont ext , as i s r equi r ed

under Chevron st ep one.

B.

A key par t of t hat cont ext i s t he st r uct ur e of t he I I RI RA

as a whol e, as we ar e obl i ged t o const r ue § 1226( c) i n l i ght of

t he whol e act i n whi ch t hat pr ovi si on appear s. See Whi t man v. Am.

Tr ucki ng Ass' ns, 531 U. S. 457, 484 ( 2001) . The st r uct ure of t hat

act , however , i s har d t o squar e wi t h Roj as. And t hus t he st r uct ur e

of t he I I RI RA suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat Congr ess chose to r ef er

t o an al i en "descr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) " r at her t han mor e

speci f i cal l y t o an al i en "descri bed i n subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) "

because Congr ess i nt ended t o ref er t o an al i en cal l ed t o mi nd by

t he paragr aph as a whol e.

We st ar t f i r st wi t h t he st r uct ur e of § 1226, whi ch i s

oddl y mi sal i gned unl ess we l ook beyond subparagr aphs ( A) - ( D) of



- 23 -

( c) ( 1) t o t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause t o i dent i f y t he al i en

t o whom ( c) ( 2) r ef er s. Cf . Whi t man, 531 U. S. at 484- 86 ( decl i ni ng

t o def er t o an agency' s i nt erpr etat i on under Chevr on where such

i nt er pr et at i on was "so at odds wi t h [ t he st at ut e' s] st r uct ur e, " i n

t hat i t r ender ed cer t ai n par t s of a car ef ul l y del i mi t ed except i on

t o t he agency' s ot her wi se br oad di scr et i on "nugat or y") . The

mi sal i gnment ar i ses because Roj as necessar i l y reads t he cr oss-

r ef er ence t o de- l i nk t he "Cust ody" di r ect i ve i n § 1226( c) ( 1) f r om

t he bar t o "Rel ease" i n ( c) ( 2) .

Roj as has t hi s ef f ect because, f or exampl e, as t he

gover nment has previ ousl y i nf or med us, " t her e ar e a var i et y of

of f enses f or whi ch an al i en may be . . . subj ect t o mandat or y

det ent i on under [ § 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) ] , but t hat may never gi ve r i se t o

a f or mal char ge, l et al one an i ndi ct ment , t r i al or convi ct i on. "

See Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 14 (quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( r est at i ng

t he government ' s ar gument ) . 14 I n consequence, some al i ens who f al l

wi t hi n subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) wi l l not be subj ect t o ( c) ( 1) because

t hey wi l l never have even been " r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody as

t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause r equi r es. See Roj as, 23 I . & N.

14 For exampl e, an al i en may f al l wi t hi n § 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) af t err ecei vi ng a summons and payi ng a f i ne f or mar i j uana possessi on.See I mmi g. Law Pr of s. et al . Ami cus Br . at 5- 6. I n addi t i on,al i ens def i ned i n § 1226( c) ( 1) ( D) ar e i nadmi ssi bl e or depor t abl esol el y f or havi ng engaged i n cer t ai n t er r or i st conduct , and socr i mi nal cust ody i s not a necessar y pr econdi t i on t o qual i f yi ng asa ( D) - t ype al i en.



- 24 -

Dec. at 122. 15 Accor di ng t o Roj as, however , such al i ens - - i f

t aken i nt o cust ody pur suant t o § 1226( a) - - woul d st i l l be subj ect

t o t he bar t o bonded r el ease t hat ( c) ( 2) est abl i shes.

Roj as necessar i l y woul d appl y t he bar t o bonded rel ease

t o such al i ens because Roj as makes an al i en' s " r el ease" f r om

cri mi nal cust ody i r r el evant t o t he appl i cat i on of § 1226( c) ( 2) .

Af t er al l , i t i s t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause and not

subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) t hat ensur es t hat an al i en t aken i nt o cust ody

pur suant t o ( c) ( 1) i s an al i en who has been " r el eased" f r om

cr i mi nal cust ody. Thus, Roj as i ncongr uousl y ( and wi t hout even

acknowl edgi ng t he i ncongr ui t y) r equi r es one t o bel i eve t hat

Congress was so concer ned about cer t ai n al i ens who had never been

i n cr i mi nal cust ody, as t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause

cont empl at es, bei ng out and about t hat i t di r ect ed t he At t or ney

General t o hol d t hem wi t hout bond even t hough Congr ess l ef t her

15 Under any i nt er pr et at i on of " r el eased, " see H. R. Rep. No.101- 681( I ) , § 1503, at 148 ( 1990) , r epr i nt ed i n 1990 U. S. C. C. A. N.6472, 6554, 1990 WL 188857 ( st at i ng t hat t he t r ai l i ng l anguage i n§ 1226( c) ( 1) was i nt ended t o cl ar i f y that t he At t or ney Gener al

must " i ncar cer at e aggr avat ed f el ons upon r el ease f r omconf i nement ,r egar dl ess of whet her such r el ease i nvol ves par ol e, pr obat i on, orot her f or ms of super vi si on. " ( emphasi s added) ) ; Lor a, 2015 WL6499951, at *6; Kot l i ar , 24 I . & N. Dec. at 125; West , 22 I . & N.Dec. at 1410, some al i ens who f al l wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on ofsubpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) wi l l not have been " r el eased" as t hey wi l lnot have been i n cr i mi nal cust ody of any sor t .



- 25 -

compl et e di scr et i on t o deci de not t o t ake t hem i nt o i mmi gr at i on

cust ody at al l . 16

Pet i t i oner s' r eadi ng avoi ds t hi s oddl y hal f - hear t ed

under st andi ng of t he det ent i on mandat e. Pet i t i oner s r ead t he

r el ease- f r omcr i mi nal - cust ody const r ai nt t hat appear s out si de

subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) and i n t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause t o

l i mi t bot h t he "Cust ody" and "Rel ease" aspect s of t he det ent i on

mandat e. Under t hi s more nat ur al r eadi ng, § 1226 as a whol e

coher es qui t e wel l . Pur suant t o § 1226( a) , t he At t or ney Gener al

woul d have t he di scr et i on t o rel ease on bond t hose al i ens she had

t he di scr et i on not t o t ake i nt o cust ody. And, pur suant t o §

1226( c) , t he At t orney General woul d be mandat ed t o keep i n cust ody

16 Tel l i ngl y, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d orl egi sl at i ve hi st or y t o t he I I RI RA t hat Congr ess was any mor ewor r i ed about t he r el ease by i mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i es of cr i mi nalal i ens al r eady i n i mmi gr at i on cust ody t han about t he f ai l ur e ofi mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i es t o t ake cr i mi nal al i ens i nt o cust ody i nt he f i r st pl ace. And t hus we do not see a basi s f or concl udi ngt hat a Congr ess concer ned about " [ u] ndet ai ned al i ens, " S. Rep. No.104- 48 (1995) , 1995 WL 170285, at *2, woul d be i ncl i ned t o pl acea r el ease- f r omcr i mi nal - cust ody const r ai nt on t he di scret i on t ot ake al i ens i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody but not on t he di scr et i on t or el ease al i ens f r om such cust ody. The puzzl e, t hen, i s whyCongr ess woul d have want ed t o expr ess i t s unhappi ness wi t h bot hf or ms of execut i ve di scret i on i n t he par t i al way Roj as f avor s.

Not abl y, such di f f er ent t r eat ment woul d appl y not onl y t o t he onet ype of al i en who has never been r el eased f r om cr i mi nal cust odyt hat our col l eagues choose t o ment i on, see i nf r a at 90, but i twoul d al so i mpl i cat e myr i ad ot her t ypes of al i ens t hat t hegover nment i t sel f has consi st ent l y i dent i f i ed as f al l i ng wi t hi nsubpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) but not wi t hi n t he ( c) ( 1) cust ody di r ect i vemor e br oadl y. See, e. g. , Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 14.



- 26 -

onl y t hose she was mandat ed t o t ake i nt o cust ody. 17 See Saysana,

590 F. 3d at 9, 13- 16 ( anal yzi ng t he meani ng of t he "when . . .

r el eased" cl ause and i t s t r ai l i ng l anguage i n ( c) ( 1) i n or der t o

det ermi ne whet her an al i en was pr oper l y hel d wi t hout bond under

( c) ( 2) ) . I n t hi s way, Congr ess woul d have cr af t ed a det ent i on

mandat e t hat , f r omst ar t t o f i ni sh, cover s t he same cl ass of al i ens

( whatever t he word "when" mi ght mean) t hat i t had i dent i f i ed as a

cause f or concern. 18

Two ot her par t s of t he I I RI RA l end f ur t her suppor t t o

pet i t i oner s' r eadi ng of t he cross- r ef er ence, i n whi ch t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause i n ( c) ( 1) appl i es as a const r ai nt

17 Our col l eagues not e t hat t he descr i pt i on i n § 1226( c) ( 2)of when al i ens subj ect t o that pr ovi si on may qual i f y f or r el easef r om i mmi gr at i on cust ody - - when necessar y f or wi t nesspr ot ect i on - - does not r ef er expr essl y t o t he "when . . . r el eased"cl ause. See i nf r a at 74. But ( c) ( 2) al so does not expr essl y r ef ert o subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) , yet our col l eagues woul d not di sput et hat a person wi t h no such pr edi cat e of f ense coul d not be subj ectt o ( c) ( 2) . We t hus do not bel i eve t hi s except i on cl ar i f i es thepr eci se i ssue at hand i n any respect .

18 I n descri bi ng t he "mandat or y det ent i on pr ovi si on" ( i . e. ,§ 1226( c) ) , t he panel i n Saysana concl uded t hat " t he ' whenr el eased' l anguage ser ves t h[ e] . . . l i mi t ed but f ocused pur poseof pr event i ng t he ret ur n t o the communi t y of t hose rel eased i nconnect i on wi t h t he enumerat ed of f enses [ i n subparagr aphs ( A) -( D) ] . . . . " 590 F. 3d at 17 ( emphasi s added) . Saysana t hus

vi ewed t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause as l i mi t i ng ( c) as a whol e,i ncl udi ng t he pi ece of ( c) t hat "prevent s t he r et ur n t o t hecommuni t y" ( i . e. , pr ohi bi t s t he bonded r el ease) of cer t ai n al i ens.See al so Mat t er of Gar cí a- Ar r eol a, 25 I . & N. Dec. 267, 270- 71 &n. 4 ( BI A 2010) ( concl udi ng t hat Saysana hel d t hat ( c) ( 2) r ef er s t oand i ncor por at es t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause as a const r ai ntand ther eby r ecogni zi ng the conf l i ct bet ween Saysana and Roj as) .



- 27 -

across t he whol e of ( c) . These par t s of t he I I RI RA ar e set f or t h

i n t he Tr ansi t i on Per i od Cust ody Rul es ( TPCR) . These r ul es appl y

i nst ead of § 1226( c) f or a one- or t wo- year t r ansi t i on per i od, but

onl y i f t hey ar e i nvoked by t he At t or ney Gener al . I I RI RA

§ 303( b) ( 2) , Pub. L. No. 104- 208, 110 St at . at 3009- 586.

The f i r st i nst r uct i ve par t l i es i n t he TPCR' s paral l el

det ent i on mandat e. The TPCR' s mandat e shar es t he same st r uct ure

as § 1226( c) . 19 And, not abl y, l i ke § 1226( c) , t he pr edi cat e

19 The TPCR, enact ed i n I I RI RA § 303( b) ( 3) , Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 St at . at 3009- 587, pr ovi des i n par t :

( A) I N GENERAL. - - Dur i ng t he per i od i n whi ch t hi spar agr aph i s i n ef f ect pur suant t o par agr aph ( 2) , t he At t or neyGener al shal l t ake i nt o cust ody any al i en who - -

( i ) has been convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed f el ony . . . ,( i i ) i s i nadmi ssi bl e by r eason of . . . ,( i i i ) i s depor t abl e by reason of havi ng commi t t ed anyof f ense cover ed i n . . . , or( i v) i s i nadmi ssi bl e under . . . ,

when t he al i en i s r el eased, wi t hout r egar d t o whet her t heal i en i s r el eased on par ol e, super vi sed r el ease, orpr obat i on, and wi t hout r egard t o whether t he al i en may bear r est ed or i mpr i soned agai n f or t he same of f ense.( B) RELEASE. - - The At t orney General may r el ease t he al i enonl y i f t he al i en i s an al i en descr i bed i n subpar agr aph( A) ( i i ) or ( A) ( i i i ) and- -

( i ) t he al i en was l awf ul l y admi t t ed t o t he Uni t ed St at esand sat i sf i es t he At t or ney Gener al t hat t he al i en wi l lnot pose a danger t o the saf et y of ot her per sons or ofpr oper t y and i s l i kel y t o appear f or any schedul ed

pr oceedi ng, or( i i ) t he al i en was not l awf ul l y admi t t ed t o t he Uni t edSt at es, cannot be r emoved because t he desi gnat ed count r yof r emoval wi l l not accept t he al i en, and sat i sf i es t heAt t or ney Gener al t hat t he al i en wi l l not pose a dangert o t he saf et y of ot her per sons or of pr oper t y and i sl i kel y t o appear f or any schedul ed pr oceedi ng.



- 28 -

of f enses t hat t r i gger t he cust ody di r ect i ve i n t he TPCR do not

r equi r e an al i en t o have been "r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody.

See Mat t er of Gar vi n- Nobl e, 21 I . & N. Dec. 672, 680- 81 ( BI A 1997) .

The TPCR' s mandat e t hus present s t he same i nt er pret i ve quest i on

t hat § 1226( c) pr esent s as t o whet her t he "when . . . r el eased"

cl ause - - and t hus i t s r el ease- f r om- cri mi nal - cust ody const r ai nt -

- i n t hat mandat e' s cust ody di r ect i ve l i mi t s t hat mandat e' s f ol l ow-

on bar t o bonded r el ease. And because thi s mandat e pr esent s t he

same i nt er pr et i ve quest i on, i t al so pr esent s t he same pot ent i al

st r uct ur al mi sal i gnment . 20

Tel l i ngl y, t he TPCR present s i t s cust ody di r ect i ve

( i ncl udi ng i t s "when . . . r el eased" cl ause) under t he headi ng "I n

General " and t he bar t o bonded r el ease under t he subsequent

headi ng, "Rel ease. " Thi s pr esent at i on i ndi cat es t hat t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause const r ai ns bot h t he cust ody di r ect i ve

and t he bar t o bonded r el ease, such t hat t he bar appl i es t o the

ver y peopl e encompassed by t he "Gener al " di r ect i ve, r at her t han to

some peopl e who were not encompassed by t hat di r ect i ve at al l

because t hey wer e never " r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody.

20 The t wo par agr aphs i n t he t r ansi t i on r ul es are l i nked by across- r ef er ence ( "t he al i en") t hat di f f er s f r om t he one ourcol l eagues mi st akenl y assi gn such wei ght i n const r ui ng§ 1226( c) ( 2) and t hat i s, as a pur el y text ual mat t er , al so notcl ear .



- 29 -

The second i nst r uct i ve par t of t he I I RI RA l i es i n sect i on

303( b) ( 2) , Pub. L. No. 104- 208, 110 St at . at 3009- 586. Thi s TPCR

pr ovi si on medi at es t he shi f t f r om t he t r ansi t i on r ul es t o t he

per manent r egi me. The pr ovi si on cl ear l y pr ovi des t hat § 1226( c)

as a whol e - - bot h wi t h r espect t o i t s cust ody di r ect i ve and i t s

bar t o bonded r el ease - - appl i es onl y t o al i ens "r el eased af t er "

t he TPCR expi r es. And t he BI A has r i ght l y r ead t hi s "r el eased

af t er " cl ause t o mean t hat an al i en must have been " r el eased" f r om

cr i mi nal cust ody t o be subj ect t o § 1226( c) goi ng f or war d. See I n

r e Adeni j i , 22 I . & N. Dec. 1102, 1108- 11 ( BI A 1999) . Thi s cl ause

t hus ensur es t hat a r el ease- f r omcr i mi nal - cust ody const r ai nt does

now l i mi t t he scope of bot h ( c) ( 1) and ( c) ( 2) .

I f we appl i ed Roj as' s anal ysi s of ( c) ( 2) t o t he TPCR' s

equi val ent t o ( c) ( 2) , however , no such " r el eased" const r ai nt woul d

l i mi t t he scope of t hat por t i on of t he TCPR' s det ent i on mandat e

because t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause i n i t s cust ody di r ect i ve

woul d not appl y t o t he mandate as a whol e. Under Roj as, t heref ore,

t he " r el eased af t er " cl ause woul d - - i n t hi s key r espect - - make

t he permanent mandat e' s bar t o bonded r el ease l ess sweepi ng t han

t he supposedl y more f l exi bl e TPCR mandat e' s bar had been, even

t hough Congr ess cl ear l y i nt ended t he l at t er t o be l ess



- 30 -

encompassi ng. 21 No such anomal ous nar r owi ng of t he det ent i on

mandate woul d occur upon t he expi r at i on of t he TPCR i f , by

cont r ast , t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause l i mi t s t he bar t o bonded

r el ease t hat appear s i n both t he t r ansi t i on and t he per manent

r ul es. 22

For t hese reasons, t he st r uct ur e of t he I I RI RA as a whol e

st r ongl y i ndi cat es t hat Congr ess di d i nt end f or t he cross-

r ef er ence i n § 1226( c) ( 2) t o r each beyond subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) t o

t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause and t hus t o r ef er t o an al i en

t aken i nt o cust ody pur suant t o t he dut y i mposed by ( c) ( 1) as a

whol e. 23 And t hus t he I I RI RA' s st r uct ur e i ndi cat es t hat Congr ess

21 See 142 Cong. Rec. S11838- 01, 1996 WL 553814 ( dai l y ed.Sept . 30, 1996) ( st at ement of Sen. Hat ch) ( expl ai ni ng t hat one oft he I I RI RA' s managers and conf erees agr eed t o t he TPCR because oft he I NS' s pl eas of i nsuf f i ci ent r esour ces t o compl y wi t h t heAEDPA) ; Garvi n- Nobl e, 21 I . & N. Dec. at 675 ( same) .

22 Our col l eagues t r y t o downpl ay t hi s anomal y by emphasi zi ngt he car ve- out s i n t he TPCR' s bar t o bonded r el ease. See i nf r a at88- 89. But t hese car ve- out s ar e l i mi t ed ones. I I RI RA§ 303( b) ( 3) ( B) , Pub. L. No. 104- 208, 110 St at . at 3009- 587. Andwe t hi nk i t unl i kel y t hat Congr ess woul d have i nt ended f or onl yt he det ent i on mandat e i n t he t r ansi t i on r egi me - - and not t hedet ent i on mandat e i n t he permanent r egi me - - t o appl y t o someal i ens i n such cl asses of pot ent i al l y danger ous cri mi nal al i ens asunl awf ul l y admi t t ed al i ens wi t h a § 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) pr edi cat e andal i ens wi t h a § 1226( c)( 1) ( D) pr edi cat e. I t i s especi al l y unl i kel yt hat Congr ess woul d have i nt ended t he TPCR, but not § 1226( c) , t o

oper at e wi t hout a r el ease- f r omcr i mi nal - cust ody const r ai nt on i t sdet ent i on mandat e when t he precedi ng det ent i on mandat e di d embodysuch a const r ai nt . See AEDPA, § 440( c) , Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110St at . 1214, 1277; see Gr odzki v. Reno, 950 F. Supp. 339, 342 ( N. D.Ga. 1996) .

23 The " r el eased af t er " cl ause woul d mi ni mi ze t he st r angedi sj unct ur e bet ween § 1226( c) ( 1) and ( c) ( 2) t hat Roj as unavoi dabl y



- 31 -

r ef er r ed t o par agr aph ( 1) r at her t han mor e speci f i cal l y t o t he

subpar agr aphs wi t hi n i n i t because Congr ess i nt ended t o l i nk t he

"Cust ody" and "Rel ease" aspect s of t he detent i on mandate so t hat

t hey woul d work t ogether . Bef ore we concl ude t hat Congr ess cl ear l y

chose t he br oader ant ecedent t o "an al i en descr i bed i n paragr aph

( 1) , " however , we must st i l l "exhaust t he t r adi t i onal t ool s of

st at ut or y const r uct i on. " See Si er r a Cl ub v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019,

1027 ( D. C. Ci r . 2008) . And so we now t ur n t o t he l egi sl at i ve

hi s tory.

C.

The l egi sl at i ve hi st or y conf i r ms t hat Congr ess i nt ended

t he cross- r ef er ence i n § 1226( c) ( 2) t o r ef er t o an al i en t aken

i nt o cust ody pur suant t o t he dut y i mposed by ( c) ( 1) as a whol e

cr eat es, but we pr esume t he coherence of t he permanent det ent i onmandat e was not i nt ended t o depend on the t r i gger i ng of ananci l l ar y and pot ent i al l y never oper at i ve cl ause i n t he TPCR.Whi t man, 531 U. S. at 468. Regar dl ess, t he " r el eased af t er " cl ausewoul d do not hi ng t o avoi d t he anomal y of t he permanent mandat ebei ng l ess sweepi ng i n a key r espect t han t he t r ansi t i on mandat ehad been.

Our col l eagues, but not t he gover nment or Roj as i t sel f ,cont end t hat t he canon agai nst surpl usage suppor t s Roj as' s r eadi ngof t he cr oss- r ef er ence i n § 1226( c) ( 2) because ot her wi se"when . . . r el eased" woul d be dupl i cat i ve of "r el eased af t er . "

See i nf r a at 75- 76. But t o t he ext ent t hi s ar gument has any f or ce,i t has i t onl y i f "when" has a t i me- l i mi t ed meani ng. Thesur pl usage concer n t hus pr ovi des no basi s f or concl udi ng t hat Roj asi s r i ght t o t r eat t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause as a whol e asi r r el evant t o ( c) ( 2) . As a r esul t , we consi der t hi s sur pl usageargument when we t urn to t he i ssue of what "when" means - - an i ssueon whi ch we owe t he BI A no def er ence and whi ch we must conf r ontonl y i f t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause does appl y t o al l of ( c) .



- 32 -

r at her t han onl y t o an al i en descr i bed i n subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) .

And t hus t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y hel ps t o make cl ear t hat t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause - - and what ever l i mi t at i ons i t

i mposes - - appl i es across t he whol e of ( c) . Thi s concl usi on

f ol l ows f r om t he l egi sl at i ve hi story di r ect l y t i ed t o t he I I RI RA

and f r om t he many pr ecur sors t o § 1226( c) . The t ext and hi st or y

of t hose pr ecur sors show t hat Congr ess i nt ended f or t hose ver si ons

of t he det ent i on mandat e t o oper at e i n j ust t he l i nked

manner t hat Roj as r ej ect s i n const r ui ng ( c) , and t he evi dence al so

i ndi cat es t hat Congr ess di d not mean t o al t er t hi s aspect of t he

l ongst andi ng scheme i n passi ng t he I I RI RA. Mi l ner v. Depar t ment

of t he Navy, 562 U. S. 562, 572 ( 2011) ( "Those of us who make use

of l egi sl at i ve hi st or y bel i eve t hat cl ear evi dence of

congr essi onal i nt ent may i l l umi nat e ambi guous t ext . " ) ; see

al so Gol di ngs v. Wi nn, 383 F. 3d 17, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "[ I ] f t he

st at ut e' s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y r eveal s an unequi vocal answer as t o

t he st at ut e' s meani ng, we do not l ook t o

t he [ agency' s] i nt er pr et at i on . . . . " ) .

1.

The t i t l e t o § 1226( c) - - encompassi ng bot h ( c) ( 1) ' s

"Cust ody" di r ect i ve and ( c) ( 2) ' s "Rel ease" bar - - i s " Det ent i on of

Cr i mi nal Al i ens. " The conf er ence r epor t t o t he I I RI RA f ol l ows t he

l anguage of t hat over ar chi ng t i t l e i n descri bi ng i n unqual i f i ed

t er ms t he "subsect i on" as provi di ng t hat t he At t or ney Gener al "must



- 33 -

det ai n" cer t ai n al i ens. The r epor t t hen set s f or t h one

qual i f i cat i on t o that r equi r ement i n t he next sent ence and anot her

qual i f i cat i on i n t he t hi r d sent ence, stat i ng t hat "[ t ] hi s

detent i on mandate appl i es whenever such an al i en i s r el eased f r om

i mpr i sonment , r egar dl ess of t he ci r cumst ances of t he

r el ease. " H. R. Conf . Rep. No. 104- 828 ( 1996) , 1996 WL

563320, at *210- 11. And f i nal l y, t he r epor t st at es t hat " [ t ] hi s

subsect i on al so pr ovi des" f or t he "r el ease[ ] " of al i ens "f r om t he

At t or ney Gener al ' s cust ody" i n one l i mi t ed ci r cumst ance. See i d.

I n keepi ng wi t h t he t i t l e t o § 1226( c) , we thus under st and t he use

of t he phr ase "[ t ] hi s det ent i on mandat e" t o r ef er t o a st ar t - t o-

f i ni sh det ent i on r egi me t hat i s l i mi t ed across- t he- boar d by t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause. See Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 119,

122- 23 ( descr i bi ng the "mandat or y det ent i on aspect s of t he

st at ut e" as ar i si ng f r om bot h t he bar t o bonded r el ease and t he

cust ody di r ecti ve) . Af t er al l , t he r epor t expr essl y at t r i but es

t he mandat e to t he "subsect i on" i t descr i bes r at her t han t o onl y

par t of i t .

But even i f , as our col l eagues cont end, t he repor t ' s

r ef er ence t o "[ t ] hi s det ent i on mandat e" i s onl y t o t he di f f er ent l y

wor ded and mor e l i mi t ed dut y t o " t ake i nt o cust ody" cer t ai n al i ens

set f or t h onl y i n § 1226( c) ( 1) , see i nf r a at 77- 78, t he r epor t

woul d t hen merel y rest at e the quest i on t hat we must deci de: whet her

Congr ess i nt ended f or t he bar t o bonded r el ease set f or t h i n ( c) ( 2)



- 34 -

t o i ncor por at e t he condi t i ons t hat pl ai nl y l i mi t t he appl i cat i on

of t he cust ody di r ecti ve i n ( c) ( 1) . 24 I f so, t he r emai ni ng

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y that actual l y concer ns t he r el at i onshi p

bet ween the cust ody and rel ease aspect s of t he det ent i on mandat e

convi nces us t hat Congr ess cl ear l y di d so i nt end, when t hi s hi st or y

i s r ead agai nst t he st r ong st r uct ur al r easons t o concl ude t hat

Congr ess chose t o r ef er i n ( c) ( 2) t o "par agr aph ( 1) " r at her t han

subparagr aphs ( A) - ( D) i n or der t o encompass t he same al i ens under

bot h ( c)( 1) and ( c)( 2) .

J ust pr i or t o conf er ence, a l eadi ng Senat e sponsor of

t he I I RI RA descr i bed t he bi l l as "ensur [ i ng] t hat al i ens who commi t

ser i ous cr i mes ar e det ai ned upon t hei r r el ease f r om pr i son unt i l

t hey can be depor t ed . . . . " 142 Cong. Rec. S10572- 01 ( dai l y ed.

Sept . 16, 1996) , 1996 WL 522794 ( st at ement of Sen. Si mpson)

( emphasi s added) . And i t shoul d be no sur pr i se t hat Senat or

24 Our col l eagues' r eadi ng of t he f our t h sent ence of t her epor t , see i nf r a at 77- 78, t akes " t he At t or ney Gener al ' s cust ody"r ef er enced i n t hat sent ence t o be any cust ody, even i f ef f ect ed asa mat t er of di scr et i on under § 1226( a) , r at her t han t o be t hemandatory cust ody of t he At t orney General under § 1226( c) t hat - -on our col l eagues' r eadi ng of t he r epor t - - t he pr ecedi ng sent enceshad necessar i l y j ust r ef er enced. And our col l eagues r ead t he

r ef er ence t o "such an al i en" i n t hat sent ence t o be a r ef er enceonl y to an al i en who has commi t t ed an ( A) - ( D) of f ense rather t hant o an al i en who was t aken i nt o cust ody pur suant t o the dut y i mposedby ( c) ( 1) as a whol e. See i d. But t he t ext does not r esol vewhet her our col l eagues are r i ght t o read t hese words t hi s way, ast hese wor ds on t hei r own do not t el l us whet her t he r epor t t r eat st he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause as i f i t wer e i ncor por at ed as al i mi t at i on on t he bar t o bonded r el ease.



- 35 -

Si mpson descr i bed t he bi l l t hi s way. Congr ess st at ed i n a key

r eport r i ght bef ore conf erence t hat t he new measure was i nt ended

t o "r est at e[ ] " t he pr ovi si ons of t he ol d st at ut e "r egar di ng t he

det ent i on of an al i en convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed f el ony . . . . "

See H. R. Rep. 104- 469( I ) ( 1996) , 1996 WL 168955, at *230. And, as

we next expl ai n, each pr i or ver si on of t he det ent i on mandat e

( i ncl udi ng t he i mmedi at e pr ecur sor t o t he I I RI RA) si mi l ar l y

t r eat ed the t wo anal ogous di r ect i ves t o t he ones t hat subsect i on

( c) cont ai ns as oper at i ng i n t andem.

2.

The t ext and l egi sl at i ve hi st or y t o t he precur sor s t o

§ 1226( c) cl ear l y show t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o l i nk t he cust ody

di r ect i ve and t he bar t o bonded r el ease i n t hese pr i or det ent i on

mandat es i n j ust t he way t hat Roj as r ej ect s i n const r ui ng

§ 1226( c) . And i nt er pr et er s of t hose pr ecur sor s –- i ncl udi ng bot h

t he BI A and t he di st r i ct cour t s –- so r ead t hem.

We st ar t wi t h t he 1988 mandatory detent i on st atut e,

whi ch pr ovi ded: "The At t or ney Gener al shal l t ake i nt o cust ody any

al i en convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed f el ony upon compl et i on of t he

al i en' s sent ence f or such convi ct i on. Not wi t hst andi ng subsect i on

( a) [ t he t hen- equi val ent of § 1226( a) ] , t he At t or ney Gener al shal l

not r el ease such f el on f r omcust ody. " Ant i - Dr ug Abuse Act of 1988,

§ 7343( a) , Pub. L. No. 100- 690, 102 St at . 4470. The t ext i s most

nat ur al l y read as l i mi t i ng t he bar t o bonded r el ease t o t he



- 36 -

" f el ons" whom t he At t or ney Gener al was r equi r ed t o "t ake i nt o

cust ody. " And not l ong af t er i t s enact ment , t he BI A r ead t he

pr ovi si on j ust t hat way, by t r eat i ng t he "upon compl et i on"

cl ause ( t he t hen- equi val ent of t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause) i n

t he 1988 mandat e' s cust ody di r ect i ve as i f i t condi t i oned t hat

mandat e' s " such f el on" cl ause ( t he t hen- equi val ent of "an al i en

descr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) ") i n t he f ol l ow- on bar t o

bonded r el ease f r om i mmi gr at i on cust ody. Mat t er of Eden, 20 I . &

N. Dec. 209, 211 ( BI A 1990) . 25

25 The BI A' s deci si on i n Eden, as our col l eagues poi nt out ,di d not i nvol ve t he par t i cul ar t i mi ng el ement i nvol ved i n t hi scase. But t hat i s no mat t er as Eden i s di r ect l y on poi nt as tot he pr eci se i ssue f or whi ch t he government seeks Chevr ondef er ence - - t hat i s, t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he "cust ody" and"r el ease" aspect s of t he pr esent det ent i on mandat e. Our col l eaguescont end ot her wi se as f ol l ows. Our col l eagues suggest t hat even i ft he BI A i n Eden had r eached t he same resul t by concl udi ng, i nst ead,t hat once an aggr avated f el on was i n i mmi gr at i on cust ody he coul dnot t hen be rel eased on bond ( r egardl ess of whet her he had everbeen r el eased f r om cr i mi nal cust ody) , t he BI A st i l l woul d have hadr eason t o consi der t he meani ng of t he "upon compl et i on" cl ause.And t hat i s because, our col l eagues cont end, t he BI A woul d havehad an i nt er est i n cl ar i f yi ng whet her t he At t or ney Gener al had t heaut hor i t y t o pl ace an al i en i n i mmi gr at i on cust ody at al l , evendi scr et i onar i l y, whi l e t hat al i en was st i l l ser vi ng hi s cr i mi nalsent ence. See i nf r a at 93- 94. But t he BI A had no need t o cl ar i f yt he meani ng of t he "upon compl et i on" cl ause f or t hat di st i nctpur pose. And t hat i s because, as t he BI A i n Eden acknowl edged, anal i en coul d have been t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody under t he

di scret i onar y det ent i on aut hor i t y conf er r ed by t hen- equi val ent t o§ 1226( a) . I n f act , t he i mmi gr at i on j udge i n Eden gr ant eddi scr et i onar y bond t o the al i en i n t hat case under t he t hen-equi val ent of § 1226( a) , whi ch occasi oned t he appeal t o t he BI A byt he execut i ve. See Eden, 20 I . & N. Dec. at 210, 212 ( not i ng t hatt he i mmi gr at i on j udge had concl uded t hat t he al i en "had beenpr oper l y det ai ned under [ t he t hen- equi val ent of § 1226( a) ] " and



- 37 -

The 1990 amendment s t o t he 1988 st at ut e t hen codi f i ed

Eden, whi ch was deci ded mont hs ear l i er , and t he House r epor t t o

t he amendment s espoused t hat same vi ew of t he r el at i onshi p bet ween

t he t wo cl auses. That r epor t char act er i zed "cur r ent l aw" ( t hat

i s, t he det ent i on mandat e set f or t h i n t he 1988 st at ut e) as

" r equi r [ i ng] [ t he gover nment ] t o i ncar cer at e al i en aggr avat ed

f el ons wi t hout bond i mmedi at el y upon compl et i on of t he al i en' s

cr i mi nal ' sent ence. ' " H. R. Rep. No. 101- 681( I ) , § 1503, at 148

( 1990) ( emphasi s added) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Bd. of Comm' r s of

Shef f i el d, Al a. , 435 U. S. 110, 129- 35 ( 1978) .

Mor eover , i n codi f yi ng Eden, Congr ess modi f i ed the t hen-

equi val ent of § 1226( c) ( 1) i n or der t o cl ar i f y t he scope of t he

t hen- equi val ent of ( c) ( 2) . Congr ess di d so by maki ng cl ear t hat

al i ens wer e " r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody and t hus coul d be

hel d wi t hout bond at t he moment t hey were r el eased f r om

i ncar cer at i on, even t hough t hey mi ght st i l l be on par ol e or

super vi sed r el ease. 26 I n r evi si ng t he "upon compl et i on" cl ause,

Congr ess necessar i l y t r eat ed t he t hen- equi val ent of t he

f r ami ng t he quest i on on appeal i n t er ms of whet her "aut hor i t y t odet ai n [ an al i en whi l e he was on par ol e] pur suant t o [ t he t hen-

equi val ent of § 1226( c) ] . . . exi st [ ed] " ( emphasi s added) ) .26 Congr ess r epl aced the "upon compl et i on" cl ause wi t h "upon

r el ease of t he al i en ( r egar dl ess of whet her or not such r el ease i son par ol e, super vi sed r el ease, or pr obat i on, and r egar dl ess of t hepossi bi l i t y of r ear r est or f ur t her conf i nement i n r espect of t hesame of f ense) . " I mmi gr at i on Act of 1990, § 504( a) , Pub. L. No.101- 649, 104 St at . 4978, 5049- 50; H. R. Rep. No. 101- 681( I ) , § 1503,at 148 ( 1990) .



- 38 -

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause and i t s t r ai l i ng l anguage as l i mi t i ng

t he f ol l ow- on bar t o bonded r el ease. Ot her wi se, Congr ess woul d

have had no need t o t i nker wi t h t hat l anguage at al l i n l i ght of

t he di scret i on t o pl ace al i ens i n i mmi gr at i on cust ody t hat t he

At t orney General ot herwi se had. And, by passi ng t he amendment s,

Congr ess necessar i l y r et ai ned ( al bei t i n r evi sed f or m) t hat

l i mi t at i on on t he oper at i on of bot h t he cust ody di r ect i ve and t he

bar t o bonded r el ease. 27

Fi nal l y, i n 1996, not l ong bef or e t he I I RI RA' s

enact ment , Congress f ur t her amended t he mandat ory det ent i on

st at ut e whi l e agai n r et ai ni ng t he same st r uct ur e, whi ch agai n

nat ur al l y r eads as i f t hose bar r ed f r om r el ease ar e t hose t hat

must be pi cked up. See AEDPA, § 440( c) , Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110

27 We do not f i nd our col l eagues' cont r ar y r eadi ng of t he 1990House r eport - - i n whi ch Congr ess was supposedl y r espondi ng t o aconcern that t he "upon compl et i on" cl ause mi ght be read t odi spl ace, as t o al i ens on par ol e, t he At t or ney Gener al ' s gener aland unqual i f i ed gr ant of di scr et i onar y aut hor i t y t o t ake al i ensi nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody, see i nf r a at 94- 95 - - per suasi ve.Congr ess was r espondi ng t o Eden and t he i mmi gr at i on j udge i n t hatcase di d cl ear l y concl ude that t he At t or ney Gener al had t heaut hor i t y t o pl ace an al i en on par ol e i n i mmi gr at i on cust ody undert he t hen- equi val ent of § 1226( a) . See Eden, 20 I . & N. Dec. at210. I n of f er i ng a cont r ar y r eadi ng of t he r epor t , our col l eaguesi gnor e t he i nt r oduct or y sent ence of t he r el evant por t i on of t he

r epor t , whi ch we r ead t o suppl y t he cont ext f or t he sent ences t hatf ol l ow: "Cur r ent l aw . . . r equi r es I NS t o i ncar cer at e al i enaggr avat ed f el ons wi t hout bond i mmedi at el y upon compl et i on of t heal i en' s cri mi nal ' sent ence. ' " H. R. Rep. No. 101- 681( I ) , § 1503,at 148 ( 1990) ( emphasi s added) . We t heref ore r ead t he sent encest hat f ol l ow t o be r ef er r i ng t o t he aut hor i t y t o i ncar cer at e al i enswi t hout bond under t he mandat or y det ent i on pr ovi si on. See i d.



- 39 -

St at . 1214, 1277 ( r et ai ni ng "upon r el ease" / "such f el on"

st r uct ur e) . And pr i or t o t he passage of § 1226( c) , di st r i ct cour t s

not sur pr i si ngl y t r eat ed t he r et ai ned "upon r el ease" cl ause as i f

i t condi t i oned t he r et ai ned "such f el on" cl ause, j ust as t he BI A

and Congr ess i t sel f had t r eat ed t he anal ogous cl auses i n pr i or

det ent i on mandat es. 28

We general l y "assume that Congr ess i s aware of exi st i ng

l aw when i t passes l egi sl at i on, " see Mi l es v. Apex, 498 U. S. 19,

32 ( 1990) , so we shoul d assume t hat Congress under st ood t he

pr evai l i ng i nt er pr et at i on of t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he cust ody

28 Di st r i ct cour t s hel d t hat t he AEDPA di d not appl yr et r oact i vel y t o al i ens who had been convi ct ed and r el eased f r omi ncar cer at i on bef or e i t s enact ment i n par t because t he "uponr el ease" cl ause i mpl i ci t l y l i mi t ed t he appl i cat i on of t hedetent i on mandat e, i ncl udi ng the aspect of t he mandate governi ngbonded rel ease, t o peopl e t aken i nt o cust ody af t er t he AEDPA' spassage. See, e. g. , DeMel o v. Cobb, 936 F. Supp. 30, 36 ( D. Mass.1996) , vacated as moot af t er t he I I RI RA' s passage, 108 F. 3d 328( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( per cur i am) ( concl udi ng " t hat t he l anguage ' uponr el ease of t he al i en f r om i ncar cer at i on' i mpl i es a t i me of r el easeaf t er t he ef f ect i ve dat e of t he Act " and t hus makes t he det ent i onmandat e as a whol e pr ospect i ve i n appl i cat i on) ; Vi l l agomez v.Smi t h, No. C96- 20 1141C, 1996 WL 622451, at *2 ( W. D. Wash. J ul y31, 1996) ( unpubl i shed) ( st at i ng that t he AEDPA' s det ent i onmandat e as a whol e cannot appl y t o al i ens convi ct ed and r el easedbef or e i t s enact ment because of t he "st r ai ght f or war d" "uponr el ease" l anguage) ; Mont ero v. Cobb, 937 F. Supp. 88, 95 ( D. Mass.

1996) ; I n r e Reyes, Case No. B- 94- 80 ( S. D. Tex. May 31, 1996) ; seeal so Gr odzki , 950 F. Supp. at 342 ( hol di ng t hat t he "upon r el ease"l anguage "at l east i mpl i es t hat cust ody commence wi t hi n ar easonabl e t i me af t er r el ease f r om i ncar cer at i on" and t hus t hatpet i t i oner was ent i t l ed t o i ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ng gi ven t hel apse i n t i me between when he was r el eased f r om i ncarcerat i on andwhen he was t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody) .



- 40 -

di r ect i ve and t he bar t o bonded r el ease t o be a l i nked one. Af t er

al l , cour t s wer e consi st ent l y i nt er pr et i ng t hat r el at i onshi p post -

AEDPA i n t he same way Congress and the BI A had i nterpret ed t hat

r el at i onshi p i n t he si mi l ar l y wor ded cl auses pr e- AEDPA. 29 And

whi l e Congr ess br oadened the cross- r ef er ence i n t he pr esent

29 Our col l eagues, see i nf r a at 91- 92, f ol l owi ng Roj as' s l ead,see Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 122- 24, f i nd i nst r uct i ve t he 1991r evi si on t o an except i on t o t he bar t o bonded r el ease cont ai ned i nt he 1990 detent i on mandat e. See I mmi gr at i on Act of 1990, § 504( a) ,Pub. L. No. 101- 649, 104 St at . 4978, 5049- 50; Mi scel l aneous and

Techni cal I mmi grat i on and Nat ural i zat i on Amendment s of 1991,§ 306( a) ( 4) , Pub. L. No. 102- 232, 105 St at . 1733, 1751. Roj ascont ends t hat t he t ext of t he except i on t o t he bar t o bondedr el ease ( set f or t h i n t he revi sed ver si on of par agr aph ( B) ) showst hat t he "upon r el ease" const r ai nt i n t he t hen- ef f ect i ve det ent i onmandat e ( set f or t h i n par agr aph ( A) ) l i mi t ed nei t her t he cl ass ofl awf ul l y admi t t ed al i ens r ef er enced i n ( B) ' s except i on nor "suchf el on[ s] " r ef er enced i n ( A) ' s bar t o bonded r el ease. 23 I . & N.Dec. at 124. But as the l egi sl at i ve hi st or y j ust descr i bed shows,i n cr af t i ng that 1990 det ent i on mandat e, Congr ess pl ai nl y di di nt end f or t he "upon r el ease" r equi r ement t o modi f y t he "suchf el on[ s] " who wer e subj ect t o ( A) ' s bar t o bonded r el ease. Wet hus see no basi s f or concl udi ng t hat Congr ess suddenl y i nt endedt o al t er t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he "upon r el ease" and "suchf el on" cl auses i n par agr aph ( A) i n 1991 by way of a t echni calamendment t o par agr aph ( B) t hat does not appear t o have been madef or any such consequent i al pur pose. See Cong. Research Serv. ,Summar i es f or Mi scel l aneous and Techni cal I mmi gr at i on andNat ur al i zat i on Amendment s of 1991 ( H. R. 3049, 102nd Cong. ) ,ht t ps: / / www. govt r ack. us/ congr ess/ bi l l s/ 102/ hr 3049/ summar y( summar i zi ng t he 1991 r evi si on as appl yi ng t he except i on i n ( B) t oal l "l awf ul l y admi t t ed al i ens" as opposed t o j ust al i ens "l awf ul l yadmi t t ed f or permanent r esi dence") . Consi st ent wi t h a modest

under st andi ng of t he 1991 t echni cal r evi si on' s i mpor t , we read( B) - - by vi r t ue of t he f act t hat ( A) i s "subj ect t o par agr aph( B) " - - t o r ef er mer el y to a subset of "such f el on[ s] " i n ( A) ,whi ch i s t o say f el ons t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody "uponr el ease. " I n any event , we quest i on t he sal i ence of par agr aph ( B)f or pr esent pur poses gi ven that i t had been del eted by t he AEDPAby t he t i me Congr ess got around t o enact i ng t he I I RI RA, see AEDPA§ 440( c) , 110 St at . at 1277.



- 41 -

det ent i on mandat e t o account f or t he f act t hat not al l al i ens

subj ect t o t he pr esent mandat e qual i f y as " f el ons, " we do not t hi nk

Congr ess t her eby i nt ended t o al t er f undament al l y t he rel at i onshi p

bet ween t he cust ody di r ect i ve and t he bar t o bonded r el ease. I n

f act , t he evi dence i s t o t he cont r ar y. See H. R. Rep. 104- 469( I )

( 1996) , 1996 WL 168955, at *230 ( st at i ng t hat § 1226( c) was

i nt ended t o "r est at e[ ] " t he pr ovi si ons of t he i mmedi at el y

pr ecedi ng detent i on mandate codi f i ed i n t he AEDPA) .

3.

I n count er i ng t he subst ant i al evi dence f r om t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y t hat poi nt s agai nst Roj as, t he gover nment and

our col l eagues gi ve gr eat wei ght t o an Apr i l 1995 r epor t f r om t he

Senat e Commi t t ee on Government al Af f ai r s. See S. Rep. No. 104- 48

( 1995) , 1995 WL 170285. The Supr eme Cour t r el i ed on t hat r epor t

i n Demore v. Ki m, 538 U. S. 510, 518- 22 ( 2003) , t o expl ai n why

Congr ess coul d have had a reason f or mandat i ng t he det ent i on

wi t hout bond of cr i mi nal al i ens i n or der t o r espond t o t he

cont ent i on t hat such mandatory det ent i on was i nherent l y

ar bi t r ar y. I n addr essi ng t hat const i t ut i onal chal l enge t o

Congr ess' s power t o enact a det ent i on mandat e of any scope, t he

Supr eme Cour t di d not pur por t t o enl i st t hat r epor t t o descr i be

t he cl ass of al i ens subj ect t o t he mandat e § 1226( c) act ual l y

i mposed. And f or good r eason.



- 42 -

That 1995 r eport was not l i nked t o any par t i cul ar

bi l l . And t hat r epor t pr edat es not onl y § 1226( c) but al so t he

i mmedi ate pr ecur sor t o ( c) , whi ch used t he same "upon" / "such f el on"

l anguage t hat t r acked t he 1988 mandate and i t s r evi si ons t hat we

have j ust descr i bed. The 1995 Senate r eport cannot of f er any

suppor t , t her ef or e, f or t he suggest i on t hat t he pr esent det ent i on

mandat e must have de- l i nked t he cust ody di r ect i ve and bar t o bonded

r el ease t hat had been l i nked i n t hose pr i or ver si ons.

And, i n f act , t he r epor t does not speak t o t hat i ssue at

al l . To be sur e, t hat r epor t does show t hat i t s aut hor s wer e

"concer ned wi t h det ai ni ng and r emovi ng al l cr i mi nal al i ens, "

Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 122 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ; see al so

Syl vai n v. At t or ney Gen. of U. S. , 714 F. 3d 150, 160 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) .

But i n st at i ng t hat gener al concer n, t he r epor t does not

demonst r ate t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o pai nt wi t h t he br oad br ush

t he gover nment suggest s t hat i t used i n enact i ng § 1226( c) ( 2) .

See Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 16- 18 ( "The mandatory detent i on pr ovi si on

does not r ef l ect a gener al pol i cy i n f avor of det ent i on . . . . ") .

The r epor t does al so suggest a var i et y of ways t o addr ess

t he concer n t hat "cr i mi nal al i ens" ( i . e. , al i ens wi t h depor t abl e

of f enses) do not show up t o r emoval pr oceedi ngs. These suggest i ons

r ange f r om i ncr easi ng det ent i on bed space t o accommodat e enhanced

det ent i on ef f or t s gener al l y, t o expedi t i ng t he r emoval pr ocess so

t hat f i nal adj udi cat i on occur s whi l e an al i en i s st i l l i n cr i mi nal



- 43 -

cust ody, t o expandi ng t he r ol e of mandat or y det ent i on ( § 1226( c) )

i n r el at i on t o di screti onar y det ent i on ( § 1226( a) ) by subj ect i ng

al l cr i mi nal al i ens t o ( c) . See S. Rep. No. 104- 48 ( 1995) , 1995

WL 170285, at *3- 4, *21, *23, *31- 32. The r epor t nowhere

i ndi cat es, however , t hat Congr ess want ed to expand t he rol e of

mandat or y det ent i on haphazar dl y by de- l i nki ng ( c) ( 1) and ( c) ( 2) ,

such t hat t he bar t o bonded r el ease woul d appl y t o persons who

wer e not even subj ect t o t he cust ody di r ect i ve at al l because they

had never been i n t he cr i mi nal cust ody f r om whi ch t hey were then

"r el eased" as ( c) ( 1) cont empl at es. See gener al l y i d. 30

30 Our col l eagues f i nd suppor t f or Roj as i n Congr ess' s evi denti nt ent t o make i t mor e di f f i cul t f or cer t ai n cri mi nal al i ens t oobt ai n r el i ef f r om a f i nal or der of r emoval , see i nf r a at 82- 84,on t he appar ent assumpt i on t hat t he r i sk of f l i ght i s gr eat er f oral i ens who are more cer t ai n t o be r emoved ( and t hi s cl ass i s anespeci al l y danger ous one) . But t he pet i t i oner s have not yet f aceda def i ni t i ve adver se j udgment i n t hei r r emoval pr oceedi ngs and somay not i n f act be r emoved. Moreover , al i ens t aken i nt o cust odyunder § 1226( c) may al so have a basi s f or di scr et i onar y r el i ef i nt he f or m of cancel l at i on of r emoval , see Lor a, 2015 WL 6499951, at*3, *12, or some ot her f or m of r el i ef , such as a U Vi sa ( a t ype ofvi sa set asi de f or vi ct i ms of cer t ai n cr i mes) . We t hus see no j ust i f i cat i on f or t he i nf er ence t hat Congr ess, i n maki ng i t hardert o get r el i ef f r om a f i nal r emoval or der , must have i nt ended t odeny bond t o t hose who mi ght not be ordered r emoved at al l . I nf act , as Congr ess sur el y knows, an al i en' s i nabi l i t y t o get bonded

r el ease can l i mi t t he al i en' s capaci t y t o obt ai n l egalr epr esent at i on or ot her wi se obt ai n r el i ef f r omr emoval , see Rober tA. Kat zmann, The Legal Pr of essi on and t he Unmet Needs of t heI mmi gr ant Poor , 21 Geo. J . Legal Et hi cs 3, 10 ( 2008) ; Moncr i ef f ev. Hol der , 133 S. Ct . 1678, 1690 ( 2013) , maki ng t he i mpact ofmandat or y det ent i on pr i or t o a f i nal r emoval or der especi al l y har shi n cases wher e avenues f or r el i ef f ol l owi ng such or der have beencur t ai l ed.



- 44 -

4.

I n sum, Roj as of f er s onl y one reason f or concl udi ng t hat

t hese pet i t i oners may not be gi ven a bond hear i ng and that r eason

has not hi ng t o wi t h what t he word "when" means. On Roj as' s vi ew,

§ 1226( c) ( 2) appl i es t o any al i en who has commi t t ed an ( A) - ( D)

of f ense, r egar dl ess of whet her t he al i en was ever i n and " r el eased"

f r om cri mi nal cust ody as ( c) ( 1) r equi r es, l et al one "when" t he

al i en was r el eased f r om i t . And t hat i s because Roj as hol ds t hat

t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause as a whol e i s i r r el evant t o

( c) ( 2) . But when we consi der t he t ext of ( c) ( 2) i n l i ght of t he

st r uct ur e of t he I I RI RA as a whol e and t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, we

do not bel i eve that Roj as of f er s a t enabl e const r uct i on of t he

det ent i on mandat e.

Af t er appl yi ng t he t r adi t i onal t ool s of st at ut or y

i nt er pr et at i on, we concl ude t hat Congr ess di d cl ear l y speak t o t he

pr eci se i ssue Roj as addr essed r egar di ng t he r el evance of t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause to t he bar t o bonded r el ease i n

§ 1226( c) ( 2) . And Congr ess cl ear l y addr essed i t i n t he opposi t e

way f r om Roj as. That i s, Congr ess cl ear l y i nt ended f or t he cross-

r ef er ence i n ( c) ( 2) t o r ef er t o al i ens who have commi t t ed ( A) - ( D)

of f enses and who have been t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody

"when . . . r el eased" f r om cr i mi nal cust ody, i n accor dance wi t h

t he At t or ney Gener al ' s dut y under ( c) ( 1) .



- 45 -

I n concl udi ng t hat Roj as does war r ant def er ence, our

col l eagues r epeat edl y emphasi ze t hat i t i s r easonabl e t o concl ude

t hat t he t i mel i ness of an al i en' s i mmi gr at i on cust ody i s not

det er mi nat i ve of whet her t he det ent i on mandat e appl i es. But i t i s

i mpor t ant not t o conf use t he out come t hat r esul t s f r om Roj as' s

i nt er pr et at i on of t he mandat e' s scope wi t h t he i nt er pr et at i on

i t s e l f .

For whi l e i t i s t r ue t hat Roj as' s concl usi on t hat t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause as a whol e i s i r r el evant t o

§ 1226( c) ( 2) necessar i l y makes t i mel i ness i r r el evant t o t he

oper at i on of ( c) ( 2) , Chevr on i s cl ear t hat i t i s t he agency' s

i nt er pr et at i on of t he st at ut e and not t he out come t hat f ol l ows

f r om t hat i nt er pr et at i on t hat deser ves our def er ence. See Li n v.

U. S. Dep' t of J ust i ce, 416 F. 3d 184, 191- 92 ( 2d Ci r . 2005)

( decl i ni ng t o def er t o BI A' s summar y af f i r mance of an i mmi gr at i on

j udge deci si on because summar y af f i r mance i ndi cat es appr oval of

onl y "t he r esul t r eached i n t he deci si on" r at her t han "al l of t he

r easoni ng of t hat deci si on" and t hus does not cont ai n " t he sor t of

aut hor i t at i ve and consi der ed st at ut or y const r uct i on t hat Chevron

def erence was desi gned t o honor" ) . And t hat must be t he case, as

t he reason we def er t o agency i nt er pr et at i ons i s preci sel y because

we ar e supposed t o gi ve wei ght t o t hei r r easoned j udgment .

For Chevron pur poses, t her ef or e, t he cont ent i on that t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y or t he st r uct ur e of t he I I RI RA does not compel



- 46 -

t he t i mi ng- based out come t hat t he pet i t i oners f avor amount s t o a

non sequi t ur . What mat t er s i s t hat Roj as i mpl ausi bl y ascr i bes an

i nt ent i on t o Congr ess t o pl ace gr eat er l i mi t s on t he At t or ney

Gener al ' s di screti on t o t ake al i ens i nt o cust ody i n t he f i r st pl ace

t han on t he At t or ney Gener al ' s di scr et i on t o r el ease t hem once

t hey are i n cust ody. And so, havi ng det ermi ned under Chevr on st ep

one that Roj as' s i nt er pr et at i on of t he r el at i onshi p bet ween ( c) ( 1)

and ( c) ( 2) conf l i ct s wi t h Congr ess' s evi dent i nt ent and t hus does

not mer i t def erence, we now t ur n t o t he quest i on t hat r emai ns: t he

meani ng of ( c) ( 1) ' s "when . . . r el eased" cl ause.

III.

I n t aki ng up t hi s i ssue, we conf r ont t he quest i on t hat

Roj as never r eaches: does " when" i mpose a t i me l i mi t f or t aki ng an

al i en i nt o cust ody pur suant t o ( c) ( 1) t hat r ender s ( c) ( 2) ' s bar t o

bonded r el ease i nappl i cabl e t o t hese pet i t i oner s due t o t he

r emot eness of t hei r r el ease f r om cr i mi nal cust ody? See Syl vai n,

714 F. 3d at 157 n. 9 ( st at i ng t hat Roj as "di d not expl i ci t l y

i nt er pr et " t he wor d "when") .

The government ar gues t hat t he wor d "when" i mposes no

such t i me l i mi t , ei t her because "when" means " i f " or "any t i me

af t er" or because Congr ess at most used t he word "when" t o t r i gger

a dut y t o act pr ompt l y t hat per si st s i ndef i ni t el y. The BI A,

however , has never adopt ed ei t her vi ew, and such l i t i gat i ng



- 47 -

posi t i ons are not ent i t l ed t o Chevron def er ence. 31 See Uni t ed

St at es v. Mead Corp. , 533 U. S. 218, 231 ( 2001) . We t hus must

deci de t he cl ause' s meani ng on our own. See Sant ana v. Hol der ,

731 F. 3d 50, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

To do so, we f i r st consi der whet her t he wor d "when" as

used her e i s mer el y a synonym f or " i f " or "any t i me af t er " and

consequent l y conveys no sense of i mmedi acy at al l . We t hen

consi der whether , even i f Congr ess i nt ended f or t he word "when" t o

convey i mmedi acy, t he wor d merel y r ef l ect s a l egi sl at i ve

pr ef er ence f or t i mel y act i on and thus does not i mpose a t r ue t i me

l i mi t .

31 Al t hough t he government suggest s t hat Roj as const r ued"when" t o mean, i n ef f ect , "any t i me af t er , " Roj as di d not , as i thel d t hat t he wor d was i r r el evant t o § 1226( c) ( 2) ' s oper at i on. The government r eads t oo much i nt o Roj as' s asser t i on t hat t he"when . . . r el eased" cl ause "speci f i es[ s] t he poi nt i n t i me atwhi ch [ t he At t or ney Gener al ' s] dut y [ under ( c) ( 1) ] ar i ses. " SeeRoj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 121. I n so st at i ng, Roj as mer el ycl ar i f i ed t hat "when . . . r el eased" modi f i es "t ake i nt o cust ody"r at her t han t he "al i en" i n ( c) ( 1) , not t hat "when" i mposes nodeadl i ne. I n f act , t he BI A has seemed t o set f or t h a t i me- l i mi t edmeani ng of "when" sever al t i mes. See i d. at 122; see al so Mat t erof Saysana, 24 I . & N. Dec. 602, 607 ( BI A 2008) ; Mat t er of Val dez-Val dez, 21 I . & N. Dec. 703, 708 ( BI A 1997) . The government ' si nt er pr et at i on of t he meani ng of t he wor d "when" i s t hus not

ent i t l ed t o Chevron def er ence. Gi ven t hat t he BI A' s posi t i on ont he meani ng of "when" i s at wor st i nconsi st ent and at bestconsonant wi t h pet i t i oner s' t i me- l i mi t ed r eadi ng, we al so woul dnot def er under Ski dmor e t o such an i nt er pr et at i on, assumi ngSki dmore def er ence even appl i es t o t he gover nment ' s l i t i gat i ngposi t i on i n t hi s case. See Ski dmor e v. Swi f t & Co. , 323 U. S. 134,140 ( 1944) ( st at i ng t hat t he opi ni on of an agency i s ent i t l ed t or espect onl y t o t he extent i t has t he "power t o per suade") .



- 48 -

A.

We begi n our anal ysi s of t he f i r st i ssue wi t h t he

observat i on t hat Congr ess chose a wor d, "when, " t hat nat ur al l y

conveys some degr ee of i mmedi acy, Cast añeda, 769 F. 3d at 42- 44, as

opposed t o a pur el y condi t i onal wor d, such as "i f . " See Webst er ' s

Thi r d New I nt er nat i onal Di ct i onary 2602 ( 2002) ( def i ni ng "when" as

" j ust af t er t he moment t hat " ) . Consi st ent wi t h t he concl usi on

t hat t hi s choi ce i ndi cat es t hat Congr ess i nt ended f or "when" t o

convey i mmedi acy, § 1226( c) ( 1) says " when t he al i en i s r el eased, "

not "when t he al i en has been r el eased" or "af t er t he al i en i s

r el eased. " Si mi l ar l y, t he st r uct ur al pl acement of t he

"when . . . r el eased" cl ause suggest s Congr ess di d not use "when"

si mpl y t o announce a condi t i on, as t he cl ause does not di r ect l y

f ol l ow "any al i en who. " Cf . Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 128- 29. 32

I f Congr ess r eal l y meant f or t he dut y i n ( c) ( 1) t o t ake

ef f ect "i n t he event of " or "any t i me af t er " an al i en' s r el ease

f r om cr i mi nal cust ody, we woul d expect Congr ess t o have sai d so,

gi ven t hat i t spoke wi t h j ust such di r ect ness el sewher e i n t he

I I RI RA. See, e. g. , 8 U. S. C. § 1231( a) ( 5) ( "[ T] he al i en shal l be

32 The Roj as concur r ence suggest ed t hat t he"when . . . r el eased" cl ause i n ( c) ( 1) does not i mpose a t i mi ngconst r ai nt because i t modi f i es onl y t he of f enses denomi nat ed i nsubpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) of ( c) ( 1) , r at her t han t he dut y t o "t akei nt o cust ody. " See Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 128- 29 ( Moscato,concur r i ng and di ssent i ng) . Nei t her t he BI A, t he gover nment , norour col l eagues advance thi s vi ew, however , and we see no basi s f ort hi s vi ew gi ven t he st r uct ur al pl acement of t he cl ause.



- 49 -

r emoved under t he pr i or or der at any t i me af t er t he r eent r y. "

( emphasi s added) ) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ngs, 8 U. S. ( 4 Cr anch)

48, 54 ( 1807) ( concl udi ng t hat Congr ess i nt ended t he word "when"

i n a f eder al mar i t i me st at ut e to mean " i f " or " i n case" because

t he st at ut e cont ai ned cl ear i ndi ci a of condi t i onal i nt ent ( f or

exampl e, t he phr ase " i n ever y such case" r ecur r ed) ) . I n f act , t he

BI A i t sel f not ed i n Roj as t hat "[ § 1226( c) ] does di r ect t he

At t or ney Gener al t o t ake cust ody of al i ens i mmedi at el y upon t hei r

r el ease f r om cr i mi nal conf i nement . " Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 122

( emphasi s added) .

As t o j ust how pr ompt l y Congr ess i nt ended f or t he

gover nment t o act , t her e i s mor e uncer t ai nt y, as t he panel

r ecogni zed when i t const r ued t he word "when" t o mean "wi t hi n a

r easonabl e t i me af t er . " See Cast añeda, 769 F. 3d at 44. But gi ven

t he unexpl ai ned, years- l ong gap between when t hese pet i t i oners

were rel eased f r om cr i mi nal cust ody and when t hey were taken i nt o

i mmi gr at i on cust ody, we need not def i ne the bounds of

r easonabl eness i n thi s case as t hey were pl ai nl y exceeded. 33 Thus,

33 The government and our col l eagues cont end t hat i t i si mpl ausi bl e t hat Congr ess woul d have exempt ed al i ens f r om§ 1226( c)

mer el y i n consequence of t he remot eness of t hei r r el ease f r omcr i mi nal cust ody gi ven t hat such a gap i n cust ody mi ght beat t r i but abl e t o ot her f or ces. See Gov. Br . at 8- 9; see i nf r a at83. For exampl e, t he government and our col l eagues poi nt t oevi dence t hat some st at e and l ocal aut hor i t i es may f r ust r at e t heabi l i t y of t he At t or ney Gener al t o pl ace al i ens i n cust ody i n at i mel y f ashi on under ( c) ( 1) . I d. But t he agency char ged wi t h



- 50 -

f or pr esent pur poses, i t i s enough t o concl ude t hat Congr ess used

t he wor d "when" t o convey some degree of i mmedi acy and not si mpl y

t o set f or t h a condi t i on. 34

admi ni st er i ng t he Act has not pur port ed t o def i ne the word "when"or i t s t empor al bounds, l et al one how such per i od of t i me shoul dbe tol l ed i n t he ci r cumst ances t he government and our col l eaguesi dent i f y or i n ot her ci r cumst ances t hat mi ght ar i se, such as whenan al i en r ecei ves a non- carceral sent ence. See Lora, 2015 WL6499951, at *6; Kot l i ar , 24 I . & N. Dec. at 125; West , 22 I . & N.Dec. at 1410. We do not bel i eve t hat such f act - speci f i c quest i onsabout t ol l i ng pr ovi de a basi s f or concl udi ng t hat "when" i s bestr ead i n cont ext t o mean " i f " or "any t i me af t er , " gi ven t he ot her

evi dence of l egi sl at i ve i nt ent .34 Our col l eagues cont end t hat t he pet i t i oner s' vi ew of "when"woul d be at odds wi t h t he canon agai nst sur pl usage i n l i ght of t he"r el eased af t er " cl ause of t he I I RI RA § 303( b) ( 2) . But we do notsee how. At wor st , t he "r el eased af t er " cl ause i s a cl ar i f yi ngpr ovi si on i n an anci l l ar y and pot ent i al l y never oper at i ve measur e.Cf . I n r e Fahey, 779 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( i ndi cat i ng t hatl anguage t hat i s not st r i ct l y speaki ng necessar y, i f nonet hel esscl ar i f yi ng, need not be t hought t o r un af oul of t he canon agai nstsur pl usage) . That i s because t he " r el eased af t er " cl ause appear st o have been i nt ended t o cl ar i f y whi ch r ul es woul d appl y t oexi st i ng detai nees when t he TPCR expi r ed. Al i ens who werei mmedi at el y taken i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody upon t hei r r el ease f r omcr i mi nal cust ody dur i ng t he t r ansi t i on per i od wer e subj ect t o t her est r i ct i ons on bonded r el ease i mposed by t he TPCR. Whi l e t heI I RI RA § 303( b) ( 2) di d st at e t he ef f ect i ve dat e of t he newper manent r ul es § 1226( c) set f or t h, t he "ef f ect i ve dat e" cl ausedi d not make cl ear whet her t he permanent r ul es or t he by- t hen-expi r ed TPCR r ul es woul d govern t hose persons i n mandat orydet ent i on when t he TPCR expi r ed. Thus, t he " r el eased af t er " cl ausei n t he I I RI RA § 303( b) ( 2) woul d seem t o have been i nt ended t oper f or mt he usef ul f unct i on of maki ng cl ear - - as par t of a savi ngscl ause, see Gar vi n- Nobl e, 21 I . & N. Dec. at 681; Adeni j i , 22 I .

& N. Dec. at 1110- 11 ( emphasi zi ng "uncer t ai nt y . . . i n di scer ni nghow Congr ess expect ed the [ r el eased af t er ] pr ovi si on to oper at e, "gi ven t hat Congr ess may have "i nt ended" but i nadver t ent l y"negl ect ed" t o i ncor por at e t hi s pr ovi si on i nt o a br oader savi ngscl ause i n t he TPCR) - - t hat § 1226( c) woul d appl y onl y t o al i ensr el eased f r om cri mi nal cust ody "af t er " t he t r ansi t i on per i od.Conver sel y, t he ol d TPCR r ul es f or mandatory detent i on woul d



- 51 -

B.

The par t of t he conf er ence r eport t o t he I I RI RA t hat

descr i bes § 1226( c) suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat Congr ess di d not

i nt end f or t he word "when" t o have a pur el y condi t i onal meani ng.

And so, t oo, does t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y t o ( c) t hat i ndi cat es i t

was meant t o mi r r or t he pr ecur sor mandat es, each of whi ch used a

t i mi ng wor d t hat was underst ood t o convey i mmedi acy.

The conf er ence r eport st at es t hat " [ t ] hi s det ent i on

mandate appl i es whenever such an al i en i s r el eased f r om

i mpr i sonment , r egar dl ess of t he ci r cumst ances of t he r el ease. "

H. R. Conf . Rep. No. 104- 828 ( 1996) , 1996 WL 563320, at *210- 11

( emphasi s added) . As used i n t hat r eport , "whenever" i s most

pl ausi bl y read t o mean at t he t i me t hat t he al i en i s r el eased f r om

i mpr i sonment , whenever t hat event may occur , r at her t han si mpl y

" i f " t hat event occur s. I ndeed, had Congr ess i nt ended by t he use

of "whenever" t o mean " i f " or "any t i me af t er , " we agai n woul d

expect t he r epor t t o have sai d "af t er such al i en i s r el eased" or

"whenever such an al i en has been r el eased. "

cont i nue t o gover n al i ens hel d i n mandat or y det ent i on pur suant t ot hose t r ansi t i on r ul es. Thus, t he "r el eased af t er " cl ause i s byno means unnecessar y i f "when" conveys i mmedi acy. A mi spl acedconcern about surpl usage t hus shoul d not di ct ate a meani ng of t hewor d "when" t hat i s so at odds wi t h t he text , st r uct ur e, andl egi sl at i ve hi st or y. See Ki ng v. Bur wel l , 135 S. Ct . 2480, 2492-93 ( 2015) .



- 52 -

Consi st ent wi t h t hi s concl usi on, t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y

t o t he subsect i on t hat woul d become § 1226( c) i ndi cat es t hat

Congr ess i nt ended t o "r est at e[ ] " t he pr ovi si ons of t he di r ect

pr ecur sor t o ( c) " r egar di ng t he det ent i on of an al i en. " See H. R.

Rep. No. 104- 469( I ) ( 1996) , 1996 WL 168955, at *230. And t hat

di r ect pr ecur sor , whi ch i s codi f i ed i n t he AEDPA, used t he wor d

"upon, " whi ch was used i n and under st ood t o have conveyed i mmedi acy

i n al l t he det ent i on mandat es precedi ng § 1226( c) . 35

For exampl e, t he House Report on t he 1990 amendment s t o

t he 1988 mandat or y det ent i on st at ut e char act er i zed "cur r ent l aw"

as " r equi r [ i ng] [ t he] I NS t o i ncar cer at e al i en aggr avat ed f el ons

wi t hout bond i mmedi at el y upon compl et i on of t he al i en' s cr i mi nal

' sent ence. ' " H. R. Rep. No. 101- 681( I ) , § 1503, at 148 ( 1990) ,

r epr i nted i n 1990 U. S. C. C. A. N. 6472, 6554, 1990 WL 188857 (emphasi s

added) ; cf . Shef f i el d, 435 U. S. at 129- 35. And t he di st r i ct cour t s

t hat const r ued t he word "upon" i n the AEDPA' s detent i on mandat e

r eached t he same concl usi on as Congress had about t he 1988

measur e - - i t s use of t he word "upon" conveyed i mmedi acy. See,

e. g. , DeMel o, 936 F. Supp. 30, 36 ( D. Mass. 1996) , vacated as moot

af t er t he I I RI RA' s passage, 108 F. 3d 328 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) .

35 I n f act , as we have not ed, j ust pr i or t o conf er ence on t heI I RI RA, a l eadi ng Senat e sponsor of t he I I RI RA descr i bed § 1226( c)as " ensur [ i ng] t hat al i ens who commi t ser i ous cr i mes are det ai nedupon t hei r r el ease f r om pr i son unt i l t hey can be depor t ed . . . . "142 Cong. Rec. S10572- 01 ( dai l y ed. Sept . 16, 1996) , 1996 WL 522794( st atement of Sen. Si mpson) ( emphasi s added) .



- 53 -

I n sum, t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y as a whol e i ndi cat es

t hat Congr ess used t he word "when" j ust as i t had used t he word

"upon" : t o convey a sense of i mmedi acy. We t hus concl ude t hat t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y r ei nf or ces the t ext ual i ndi cat i on t hat

Congr ess di d not i nt end f or t he word "when" t o be merel y a synonym

f or " i f " or "any t i me af t er . "

C.

That br i ngs us t o t he quest i on of whet her Congr ess

i nt ended f or t he wor d "when" mer el y t o expr ess a l egi sl at i ve

pr ef er ence f or t i mel y act i on or whet her i t was i nst ead i nt ended t o

i mpose a deadl i ne f or t he appl i cat i on of t he bar t o bonded r el ease

set f or t h i n § 1226( c) . To answer t hi s quest i on, we consul t t he

pr i nci pl es under l yi ng t he so- cal l ed l oss- of - aut hor i t y canon. 36

36 Our col l eagues, i n concl udi ng t hat "when" merel y expr essesa pr ef er ence f or t i mel y act i on, do not r el y on l oss- of - aut hor i t ypr i nci pl es. See i nf r a at 98- 99. They i nst ead r eason t hat even i fRoj as i s wr ong, whet her an al i en was t i mel y t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i oncust ody i s j ust an exogenous f act and t hus does not have anybear i ng on t he cl ass of al i ens to whom § 1226( c) appl i es. See i d.I f we f ol l ow, t he suggest i on appear s t o be that t he wor d " r el eased"and t he t r ai l i ng por t i ons of t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause dor ef er t o somet hi ng endogenous t o t he al i en and t hus do character i zet he al i en t o whom ( c) appl i es, even t hough t he word "when" doesnot . But al i ens do not r el ease t hemsel ves any more t han t heychoose when t hey are r el eased. We t hus do not see how t he l i ne

bet ween exogenous and endogenous f act s coul d be dr awn so f i nel y ast o at t r i but e to Congr ess an i nt ent t o car ve up t he"when . . . r el eased" cl ause i n t hi s odd way, even i f t her e wer eany t extual basi s f or const r ui ng t he At t or ney Gener al ' s dut y under( c) as bei ng l i mi t ed by f act s endogenous t o the al i en r at her t hanby al l r el evant ones. And, as not ed, t her e i s no t ext ual basi sf or concl udi ng t hat t he wor d "when" - - and what ever l i mi t at i ons



- 54 -

That i nt er pret i ve ai d comes i nt o pl ay where Congr ess has

mandated t hat t he government "shal l " do somethi ng wi t hi n a cer t ai n

t i me f r ame and there i s a quest i on about t he consequence Congr ess

i nt ends f or t he gover nment ' s f ai l ur e to compl et e t he requi r ed

act i on wi t hi n t hat t i me f r ame. See Bar nhar t v. Peabody Coal Co. ,

537 U. S. 149, 158- 59 ( 2003) . The canon gener al l y counsel s t hat :

" [ i ] f a st at ut e does not speci f y a consequence f or noncompl i ance

wi t h st at ut or y t i mi ng pr ovi si ons, t he f eder al cour t s wi l l not i n

t he or di nar y cour se i mpose t hei r own coer ci ve sanct i on. " I d. at

159. The ani mat i ng pr i nci pl e behi nd t hi s canon i s one of

pl ausi bi l i t y gi ven t he cont ext : " i f Congr ess had meant t o set a

count er i nt ui t i ve l i mi t on aut hor i t y t o act , i t woul d have sai d

mor e t han i t di d. " I d. at 163 ( emphasi s added) .

The government cont ends t hat § 1226( c) "cont ai ns no

sanct i on f or l at e execut i ve act i on, " Gov. Br . at 10, and t hat i t

woul d be count er i nt ui t i ve t o r ender ( c) i nappl i cabl e when t he

t hat wor d i mposes - - does not const r ai n t he appl i cat i on of ( c) ( 1) ,as t he wor d cl ear l y and uncondi t i onal l y modi f i es t he At t or neyGener al ' s di r ect i ve t o "t ake i nt o cust ody. " The onl y possi bl et ext ual hook f or di st i ngui shi ng bet ween endogenous and exogenous

f acts, t her ef or e, r esi des i n ( c)( 2) ' s "descr i bed i n" l anguage.But maki ng a di st i nct i on on t hi s basi s f or t he pur pose ofunder st andi ng the bounds of t he At t or ney Gener al ' s dut y under ( c)woul d st i l l cr eat e an ar bi t r ar y l i ne- dr awi ng pr obl em. And such adi st i nct i on woul d al so i ncongr uousl y de- l i nk t he cust ody di r ect i vei n ( c) ( 1) f r om t he bar t o bonded r el ease i n ( c) ( 2) by subj ect i ngt he cust ody di r ect i ve t o a t i mi ng const r ai nt not appl i cabl e t o t hebar t o r el ease.



- 55 -

execut i ve i s l at e i n t aki ng an al i en i nt o cust ody gi ven t he

det ent i on- maxi mi zi ng pur pose under l yi ng ( c) . But we do not agr ee.

Thi s case i s not l i ke t hose i n whi ch enf or cement of a

t i me l i mi t woul d r equi r e a cour t t o f ashi on a coer ci ve sanct i on

t hat appear s nowher e i n the t ext and t hat woul d compl etel y st r i p

t he gover nment of aut hor i t y "t o get [ t he] . . . j ob done, " i d. at

160. See, e. g. , i d. at 156 ( pr oposed sanct i on was compl et e l oss

of abi l i t y t o di r ect awar d of r et i r ement benef i t s t o l at e- assi gned

benef i ci ar i es) ; Br ock v. Pi er ce Ct y. , 476 U. S. 253, 258 ( 1986)

( pr oposed sanct i on was compl et e l oss of abi l i t y to r ecover mi sused

f eder al f unds) ; Dol an v. Uni t ed St at es, 560 U. S. 605, 609 ( 2010)

( pr oposed sanct i on was compl et e l oss of abi l i t y t o or der per sons

convi ct ed of cer t ai n cri mes t o pay r est i t ut i on t o vi ct i ms) .

Rat her , t he put at i ve t i me l i mi t at i ssue her e appear s i n an expr ess

except i on, § 1226( c) , t o an ot her wi se br oad gr ant of di scr et i onar y

aut hor i t y, § 1226( a) , r egar di ng t he cust ody and r el ease of al i ens

awai t i ng t he out come of r emoval pr oceedi ngs, j ust as al l t he

pr ecur sor s t o § 1226( c) were f r amed as except i ons t o t hen-

equi val ent s of § 1226( a) . Thus, enf or cement of t he t i me l i mi t

her e, unl i ke i n t he ot her cases i n whi ch l oss- of - aut hor i t y

pr i nci pl es wer e appl i ed, woul d mer el y r ender i nappl i cabl e an

expr ess l i mi t on a gr ant of aut hor i t y and t hus necessar i l y resul t

i n a r ever si on t o t hat aut hor i t y.



- 56 -

Gi ven t hi s di st i nct cont ext , t he key quest i on i s whet her

Congr ess i nt ended f or t he r equi r ement t hat t he At t orney General

t i mel y t ake al i ens i nt o i mmi gr at i on cust ody to ci r cumscr i be t he

scope of t hi s except i on. As a t ext ual mat t er , t her e i s no

i ndi cat i on t hat Congr ess i nt ended f or subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) i n

§ 1226( c) ( 1) but not t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause t o def i ne

t he out er l i mi t of t he At t or ney Gener al ' s di scret i on t hat t he

except i on i n ( c) est abl i shes. The t ext of ( c) al so does not i t sel f

i ndi cat e t hat t he t i mel i ness of an al i en' s cust ody i s mer el y a

pr ocedur al r equi r ement t hat need not be compl i ed wi t h i n a st r i ct

sense.

There r emai ns t he quest i on whet her i t never t hel ess woul d

be count er i nt ui t i ve t o r ead "when" t o ci r cumscr i be t he except i on' s

scope. The expr ess pr esent at i on of § 1226( c) as an except i on t o

( a) t hat appl i es onl y i f al l of i t s condi t i ons ar e met accor ds

wi t h t he qui t e sensi bl e i nt ui t i on t hat Congr ess di d mean t o

di st i ngui sh bet ween al i ens who f al l wi t hi n t he scope of ( a) and

al i ens who f al l wi t hi n t he scope of ( c) on t he basi s of t he

t i mel i ness of t hei r i mmi gr at i on cust ody. 37 I n const r ui ng t he

37 That Congr ess i nt ended t o cr af t a r el at i vel y nar r owdet ent i on mandat e i s har dl y i mpl ausi bl e. Af t er al l , Congr ess di dnot adopt t he r ecommendat i on i n t he 1995 Senat e repor t t o expandt he cl ass of al i ens subj ect t o mandat or y det ent i on t o "al l cr i mi nalal i ens. " See S. Rep. No. 104- 48 ( 1995) , 1995 WL 170285. Rather ,set t i ng asi de any l i mi t at i ons i mposed by the "when . . . r el eased"cl ause, Congr ess l i mi t ed mandat or y det ent i on under § 1226( c) t o



- 57 -

i nt ended scope of anot her aspect of § 1226( c) , we expl ai ned i n

Saysana t hat "[ i ] t i s count er - i nt ui t i ve t o say t he l east t o say

t hat al i ens wi t h pot ent i al l y l ongst andi ng communi t y t i es are, as

a cl ass, poor bai l r i sks. " See Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 17. And we

added that "by any l ogi c, i t st ands t o r eason t hat t he mor e remot e

i n t i me a convi ct i on becomes and t he more t i me af t er a convi ct i on

an i ndi vi dual spends i n a communi t y the l ower hi s bai l r i sk i s

l i kel y t o be. " See i d. at 17- 18. 38

Thus, i n t hi s cont ext , we concl ude t hat t he t i mi ng wor d

"when" i s best r ead t o i mpose an out er l i mi t on t he except i on t o

t he cat egor i cal bar t o di scret i onar y rel ease car ved out by

§ 1226( c) . I n consequence, al i ens l i ke pet i t i oner s, who due t o

t he unexpl ai ned years- l ong gap between t hei r cr i mi nal cust ody and

al i ens who have commi t t ed cer t ai n enumer at ed of f enses and who were"r el eased af t er " t he TPCR expi r ed ( by vi r t ue of t he I I RI RA§ 303( b) ( 2) ) ; see al so Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 15- 16 ( hol di ng t hat§ 1226( c)( 1) i s not t r i gger ed unt i l an al i en i s r el eased f r omcust ody f or havi ng commi t t ed an of f ense speci f i ed i n subparagr aphs( A) - ( D) , as opposed t o bei ng t r i gger ed by r el ease f r om any t ype ofcri mi nal cust ody) .

38 The Second Ci r cui t hel d t hat , t o avoi d "ser i ousconst i t ut i onal concer ns, " § 1226( c) "must be read as i ncl udi ng ani mpl i ci t t empor al l i mi t at i on, " such t hat al i ens t aken i nt oi mmi gr at i on cust ody pur suant t o § 1226( c) cannot be hel d wi t hout

a bond hear i ng f or more t han si x mont hs. Lor a, 2015 WL 6499951,at *10- 11. I n so hol di ng, t he Second Ci r cui t not ed t hat i ndef i ni t edet ent i on "has r eal - l i f e consequences f or i mmi gr ant s and t hei rf ami l i es, " and t hat i t i s par t i cul ar l y concer ni ng when "[ n] opr i nci pl ed argument has been mount ed f or t he not i on t hat [ t hedet ai nee] i s ei t her a r i sk of f l i ght or i s danger ous. " I d. at*12.



- 58 -

t hei r i mmi gr at i on cust ody have had t he oppor t uni t y t o re- est abl i sh

communi t y t i es, ar e not subj ect t o t he bar t o r el ease set f or t h i n

( c) . They ar e subj ect i nst ead t o t he def aul t r ul e of di screti onar y

r el ease set f or t h i n ( a) . 39

To be sure, Congr ess was concer ned about cr i mi nal al i ens

f ai l i ng t o show up f or r emoval pr oceedi ngs. See Roj as, 23 I . & N.

Dec. at 122. But Congr ess expr essl y di r ect ed t he execut i ve t o

addr ess t hat concern by compl yi ng wi t h the mandat e t o pi ck up

al i ens wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me f r ame. I n f act , Congr ess

est abl i shed t r ansi t i on r ul es t hat t he At t or ney Gener al coul d

i nvoke to ensure t he government woul d be pr epared t o compl y

pr ompt l y wi t h § 1226( c) by t he t i me t hose r ul es expi r ed. See

Adeni j i , 22 I . & N. Dec. at 1110.

As a r esul t , we do not bel i eve Congr ess i nt ended t hat

t he execut i ve coul d f ai l t o pi ck up an al i en wi t hi n a r easonabl e

t i me and t hen, despi t e t hat unexpl ai ned del ay, deny that al i en t he

chance t o seek bonded r el ease not wi t hst andi ng t hat al i en' s year s

of l i vi ng f r eel y. See Cast añeda, 952 F. Supp. 2d at 318 n. 10

39 Our col l eagues' gar deni ng exampl e i s of l i t t l e hel p i nest abl i shi ng t he cont ext f or di scer ni ng Congr ess' s i nt ent i n

enact i ng a det ent i on mandat e that " t ouches upon mat t ers of bot hper sonal l i ber t y and t he cont r ol of our nat i on' s bor der s. " Seei nf r a at 76. As f or our col l eagues' suggest i on t hat Congr ess had"no good r eason" t o di st i ngui sh bet ween al i ens t i mel y t aken i nt ocust ody and al i ens not t i mel y t aken i nt o cust ody, our pr i ordeci si on i n Saysana suppl i es a compel l i ng r eason, see Saysana, 590F. 3d at 17, as does Congr ess' s t r eat ment of § 1226( a) as a backst opsour ce of det ent i on aut hor i t y.



- 59 -

( "[ T] he exper i ence of havi ng one' s l i ber t y st r i pped away i s

dr ast i cal l y di f f er ent f r om t he exper i ence of not havi ng i t

r est or ed. ") ; cf . DeWi t t v. Vent et oul o, 6 F. 3d 32, 34- 36 ( 1st Ci r .

1993) ( hol di ng t hat r evoki ng a mi st akenl y gr ant ed suspensi on of

sent ence and r e- i mpr i soni ng a def endant af t er years of bei ng f r ee

vi ol at ed due pr ocess) . And t her e cer t ai nl y i s not hi ng i n t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y t o i ndi cat e that Congr ess di d have that

speci f i c i nt ent i on. 40

For t hese r easons, t he pr i nci pal pr ecedent t hat t he

gover nment , l i ke t he Thi r d Ci r cui t i n Syl vai n, 714 F. 3d at 158-

61, r el i es on, Uni t ed St at es v. Mont al vo–Mur i l l o, 495 U. S. 711

( 1990) , i s not t o t he cont r ar y. That case concer ned whet her t he

gover nment ' s f ai l ur e to hol d a bond hear i ng i n a t i mel y f ashi on

bar r ed t he gover nment f r omassumi ng pr e- t r i al cust ody of a cr i mi nal

def endant under t he Bai l Ref or m Act ( BRA) . See Mont al vo- Mur i l l o,

40 I n f act, t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y accor ds wi t h t he not i ont hat Congr ess want ed to l i mi t § 1226( c) t o al i ens comi ng r i ght outof cr i mi nal cust ody i n or der t o hel p i mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i esconser ve scar ce det ent i on bed space so t hat al i ens who needed t obe det ai ned under § 1226( a) coul d be. See Cr i mi nal and I l l egalAl i ens: Hear i ngs Bef ore t he Subcomm. on I mmi gr at i on and Cl ai ms oft he House Comm. on t he J udi ci ary, 104t h Cong. ( Sept . 5, 1996)( st at ement of Davi d Mar t i n, Gener al Counsel of I NS) ( not i ng t hat

cr i mi nal al i ens subj ect t o the AEDPA' s det ent i on mandate i mposedsever e burdens on det ent i on bed space and cr owded out space f oral i ens who di d not come wi t hi n such mandat e and onl y di scussi ngef f or t s by i mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i es t o t ake al i ens i nt o cust ody j ust as t hey wer e l eavi ng i ncar cer at i on) ; Ami cus Br . of Fr m. I mm. J udges and DHS Sec. Of f i ci al s at 17- 20 ( descr i bi ng scar ce det ent i onbed space) .



- 60 -

495 U. S. at 717. Not abl y, but not sur pr i si ngl y, t he BRA speci f i ed

no consequence f or hol di ng a hear i ng l ate. And t he Cour t t hus

hel d that such f ai l ur e shoul d not be deemed t o have t he dr ast i c

and di sproport i onate consequence of depr i vi ng t he government of

i t s power t o pl ace a cr i mi nal def endant i n cust ody at al l by

mandat i ng t he r el ease of t he cr i mi nal def endant . See i d. at 719-

20. 41

Her e, however , t he put at i ve t i me l i mi t appear s wi t hi n an

expr ess except i on t o a gr ant of aut hor i t y. So § 1226 i t sel f makes

cl ear what consequence woul d f ol l ow i f such t i me l i mi t i s not met .

Mor eover , t hat consequence woul d not st r i p the execut i ve of t he

power t o assume cust ody of a pot ent i al l y danger ous or f l i ght - pr one

cr i mi nal def endant . I nst ead, t he At t or ney Gener al woul d mer el y

r et ai n her ot her wi se br oad di scr et i on t o deci de whet her t o assume

and mai nt ai n cust ody of an al i en pur suant t o whatever r ul es she

41 The Supreme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Bar nhar t , 537 U. S. at 152,

i s si mi l ar . The appel l ant s ar gued t hat a cer t ai n pr ovi si on of t heCoal Act speci f i ed t he consequence f or t he gover nment ' s f ai l ur e t ot i mel y compl y wi t h anot her pr ovi si on, i d. at 153, 163, but t heCour t r ej ect ed t hi s argument because t he Coal Act ' s t ext di d notexpr essl y l i nk t he two pr ovi si ons and t her e was evi dence t o suggestt hat Congr ess di d not t hi nk of t he t wo pr ovi si ons as r el at ed. I d.at 163- 65. Mor eover , t he Cour t r easoned t hat i t was i mpl ausi bl e

t o t hi nk t hat Congr ess woul d have want ed t hat separat e pr ovi si ont o cont r ol as a pol i cy mat t er , so t he consequence was unt enabl e.I d. at 164. Her e, of cour se, Congr ess expr essl y st yl ed § 1226( c)as an except i on t hat r est r i ct s t he power ot her wi se gr ant ed under( a) , so t he assert ed consequence i s cl ear l y l i nked t o t he assert edact of noncompl i ance. And, f or t he r easons di scussed, we har dl yt hi nk i t i s count er i nt ui t i ve f or Congr ess t o have i nt ended t hat( a) woul d cont r ol i f ( c) ' s condi t i ons ar e not met .



- 61 -

may l awf ul l y est abl i sh f or exer ci si ng such di scret i on under ( a) .

Because t hi s consequence f ol l ows f r om t he t ext and because t he

t ext accor ds wi t h t he reasonabl e and i nt ui t i ve under st andi ng t hat

Congr ess i nt ended t o di st i ngui sh bet ween al i ens l i ke pet i t i oner s

and al i ens who wer e taken i nt o cust ody "when . . . r el eased, " see

Saysana, 590 F. 3d at 17, we read t he t i mi ng condi t i on at i ssue

her e as ci r cumscr i bi ng t he At t or ney Gener al ' s dut y under ( c) .

Thus, at l east absent an aut hor i t at i ve agency

const r uct i on of § 1226( c) ( 2) , we concl ude that t he wor d "when"

does set f or t h a t i me const r ai nt on ( c) t hat expi r es af t er a

r easonabl e t i me. And f or t hat r eason, we r ej ect t he gover nment ' s

cont ent i on t hat "when" must be read merel y t o t r i gger an

i ndef i ni t el y per si st i ng dut y, such t hat i t i mposes no out er bound

on t he scope of t he except i on § 1226( c) set s f or t h.

IV.

The cur r ent ver si on of t he det ent i on mandat e r equi r es

t hat al i ens who have commi t t ed cer t ai n of f enses be t aken i nt o

i mmi gr at i on cust ody i n a t i mel y manner f ol l owi ng thei r r el ease

f r om cr i mi nal cust ody. The det ent i on mandat e f ur t her pr ovi des

t hat onl y such al i ens must t hen be hel d wi t hout bond unt i l t he

compl et i on of t he r emoval pr ocess. These pet i t i oner s wer e r el eased

f r om cri mi nal cust ody year s bef or e t hey wer e f i r st pl aced i n

i mmi gr at i on cust ody. For t hat r eason, t hey cl ear l y do not f al l

wi t hi n " t hi s det ent i on mandat e. " H. R. Conf . Rep. No. 104- 828



- 62 -

( 1996) , 1996 WL 563320, at *210- 11. Accor di ngl y, we agr ee wi t h

t he t wo di st r i ct cour t s t hat t hese pet i t i oner s have t he r i ght t o

i ndi vi dual i zed bond hear i ngs at whi ch t hey can make the case t hat

t hey do not pose suf f i ci ent bond r i sks, j ust as t he At t or ney

Gener al speci f i ed i n t he r egul at i ons t hat she i ssued pur suant t o

§ 1226( a) .



- 63 -

TORRUELLA , Circuit Judge (Concurring). I r ecogni ze t hat

t he Supr eme Cour t has det ermi ned t hat Congr ess may, " [ i ] n t he

exer ci se of i t s br oad power over nat ur al i zat i on and i mmi gr at i on,

. . . r egul ar l y make[ ] r ul es t hat woul d be unaccept abl e i f appl i ed

t o ci t i zens, " Mat hews v. Di az, 426 U. S. 67, 79- 80 ( 1976) ; see al so

Demore v. Ki m, 538 U. S. 510, 521 ( 2003) , and t hat t he r i ght t o

bai l i s not absol ut e. Uni t ed St at es v. Sal er no, 481 U. S. 739,

754- 55 ( 1987) . Yet , I must r egi st er my di scomf or t wi t h r espect t o

8 U. S. C. § 1226( c) .

I am compel l ed t o suggest t hat t he i ndef i ni t e det ent i on

wi t hout access t o bond or bai l of any per son i n t he Uni t ed St at es

vi ol ates due pr ocess. See Wong Wi ng v. Uni t ed St ates, 163 U. S.

228, 238 ( 1896) ( "[ A] l l per sons wi t hi n t he t er r i t or y of t he Uni t ed

St at es ar e ent i t l ed t o t he pr ot ect i on guar ant i ed [ si c] by t h[ e

Fi f t h and Si xt h] amendment s [ si c] . . . . ") ; Yi ck Wo v. Hopki ns,

118 U. S. 356, 369- 70 ( 1886) ( appl yi ng Four t eenth Amendment due

pr ocess and equal pr ot ect i on pr ovi si ons "t o al l per sons wi t hi n t he

t er r i t or i al j ur i sdi ct i on, wi t hout r egar d t o any di f f er ences of

r ace, of col or , or of nat i onal i t y") . The U. S. Const i t ut i on

speci f i cal l y addr esses t he r i ght t o bai l . I t i s t he f i r st concer n

of an amendment t hat names j ust t hr ee subj ect mat t ers. "Excessi ve

bai l shal l not be r equi r ed, nor excessi ve f i nes i mposed, nor cruel

and unusual puni shment s i nf l i ct ed. " U. S. Const . amend. VI I I . As

t he Supr eme Cour t has el sewher e not ed, " [ b] ai l i s basi c t o our



- 64 -

syst em of l aw. " Her zog v. Uni t ed St at es, 75 S. Ct . 349, 351

( Dougl as, Ci r cui t J ust i ce, 9t h Ci r . 1955) ( ci t i ng U. S. Const .

amend. VI I I ; St ack v. Boyl e, 342 U. S. 1 ( 1951) ) . The Fi f t h

Amendment mandates t hat no "per son . . . be depr i ved of l i f e,

l i ber t y, or pr oper t y, wi t hout due pr ocess of l aw. " U. S. Const .

amend. V.

When t he gover nment exer ci ses i t s di scr et i on t o subj ect

a per son t o det ent i on wi t hout access t o a bond hear i ng af t er t he

condi t i on j ust i f yi ng det ent i on has been i n exi st ence f or a

consi der abl e per i od of t i me, i t di sr egar ds what i s by then sel f -

evi dent - - t hat sai d subj ect i s nei t her a f l i ght r i sk nor a danger

t o soci et y, t he pr i mar y r easons f or denyi ng bai l . See 18 U. S. C.

§ 3142( e) ( 1) ; cf . Car l son v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524, 542 ( 1952)

( "There i s no deni al of t he due pr ocess of t he Fi f t h Amendment

under ci r cumst ances where t here i s r easonabl e appr ehensi on of hur t

f r om al i ens char ged wi t h a phi l osophy of vi ol ence agai nst t hi s

Government . " ) . Al t hough J udge Kayat t a, Chi ef J udge Howard, and

J udge Lynch vi ew t hi s i ssue di f f er ent l y, i nf r a at 104- 05, t hi s

Cour t has el sewher e descr i bed t hei r vi ews as count er - i nt ui t i ve.

Saysana v. Gi l l en, 590 F. 3d 7, 17- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "[ I ] t i s

count er - i nt ui t i ve t o say t hat al i ens wi t h pot ent i al l y l ongst andi ng

communi t y t i es ar e, as a cl ass, poor bai l r i sks. . . . By any

l ogi c, i t st ands t o r eason t hat t he mor e r emot e i n t i me a

convi ct i on becomes and the more t i me af t er a convi ct i on an



- 65 -

i ndi vi dual spends i n a communi t y, t he l ower hi s bai l r i sk i s l i kel y

t o be. ") . Af f i r mi ng t he gover nment ' s pr er ogat i ve t o i ncar cer at e

per sons i n def endant s' si t uat i on wi t hout bai l or bond hear i ng i s

not onl y t o al l ow ar bi t r ar y and abusi ve gover nment act i on but t o

condone act s t hat r un cont r ar y t o t he Const i t ut i on. See Her zog,

75 S. Ct . at 351; see al so Wong Wi ng, 163 U. S. at 237.

I wr i t e separ at el y to ensur e t hat t he const i t ut i onal

concer ns r ai sed by § 1226( c) and t he government conduct i t commands

- - t he ongoi ng, i nst i t ut i onal i zed i nf r i ngement of t he r i ght t o

bai l and r i ght t o due pr ocess - - ar e f or mal l y acknowl edged.

Notwi t hst andi ng t hese concerns, we r each t he concl usi on we must i n

l i ght of Congr ess' s l aws, l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, and t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s hol di ngs. I t hus concur i n t he j udgment .



- 66 -

KAYATTA , Circuit Judge, with whom HOWARD, Chief Judge,

and LYNCH, Circuit Judge, join. Congress enact ed what i s now

8 U. S. C. § 1226( c) because of i t s concer n t hat i mmi gr at i on j udges

had pr oven t o be i nsuf f i ci ent l y accur at e pr edi ct or s of whi ch al i ens

woul d "engage i n cr i me and f ai l t o appear f or t hei r r emoval

hear i ngs. " Demore v. Ki m, 538 U. S. 510, 513 ( 2003) ; see S. Rep.

No. 104- 48, at 2 ( 1995) ( "Despi t e pr evi ous ef f or t s i n Congr ess t o

r equi r e det ent i on of cr i mi nal al i ens whi l e depor t at i on hear i ngs

are pendi ng, many who shoul d be det ai ned are rel eased on bond. " ) .

To addr ess t hi s concer n, Congr ess i dent i f i ed f our cat egor i es of

what Congr ess cal l ed "cr i mi nal al i ens. " 8 U. S. C. § 1226( c) .

Sect i on 1226( c) , as si gned by t he Pr esi dent on Sept ember 30, 1996,

as par t of t he I l l egal I mmi gr at i on Ref or m and I mmi gr ant

Responsi bi l i t y Act of 1996 ( "I I RI RA") , mandat es, f i r st , t hat t he

At t or ney Gener al " t ake i nt o cust ody" t hese cr i mi nal al i ens "when

t he al i en i s rel eased" f r om cri mi nal det ent i on ( t he "cust ody

mandat e" ) . See i d. § 1226( c) ( 1) . Sect i on 1226( c) t hen mandat es,

second, an end t o t he pr act i ce of i mmi gr at i on j udges t r yi ng t o

pr edi ct whi ch of t hose cr i mi nal al i ens wi l l appear f or r emoval

pr oceedi ngs i f order ed t o do so. See i d. § 1226( c) ( 2) . Under

t hi s l at t er mandat e ( t he "no- r el ease mandat e" ) , t he At t or ney

Gener al must not r el ease t he cr i mi nal al i en f r om t he At t or ney

Gener al ' s cust ody pendi ng r esol ut i on of t he al i en' s r emoval

pr oceedi ng, unl ess r el ease i s necessar y f or pr ot ect i on of cer t ai n



- 67 -

per sons i n connect i on wi t h an i nvest i gat i on i nt o a maj or cr i me.

See i d. The al i en i s, however , ent i t l ed t o an i mmedi at e hear i ng

t o adj udi cat e any cont ent i on t hat t he al i en i s not a cr i mi nal al i en

subj ect t o sect i on 1226( c) ' s mandat es. See 8 C. F. R.

§ 1003. 19( h) ( 2) ( i i ) .

Wi t h i t s evenl y di vi ded vot e, our cour t l eaves i n pl ace

t wo di st r i ct cour t deci si ons hol di ng t hat , t o t he ext ent t he

At t orney General f ai l s t o compl y pr ompt l y wi t h t he cust ody mandate,

i mmi gr at i on j udges wi l l f i nd t hemsel ves back i n t he posi t i on of

pr edi ct i ng whi ch cr i mi nal al i ens wi l l pr esent t hemsel ves f or

r emoval i f t hey ar e rel eased on bai l pendi ng t he concl usi on of

t hei r r emoval pr oceedi ngs. I ndeed, as we underst and t he r easoni ng

of our col l eagues who woul d af f i r mt he deci si ons bel ow, any f ai l ur e

by t he At t orney General t o achi eve pr ompt compl i ance wi t h t he

cust ody mandat e renders bot h t he cust ody and t he no- r el ease

mandat es i nappl i cabl e. For t he r easons we expl ai n i n t hi s opi ni on,

we woul d i nst ead j oi n al l f our ot her ci r cui t s t hat have consi der ed

t hi s i ssue by sust ai ni ng t he Boar d' s cur r ent pr act i ce i n compl yi ng

wi t h sect i on 1226( c) . See Lora v. Shanahan, No. 14- 2343- PR, 2015

WL 6499951, at *8–9 ( 2d Ci r . Oct . 28, 2015) ; Ol mos v. Hol der , 780

F. 3d 1313, 1327 ( 10t h Ci r . 2015) ; Syl vai n v. At t or ney Gener al , 714

F. 3d 150, 161 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) ; Hosh v. Lucero, 680 F. 3d 375, 384

( 4t h Ci r . 2012) .



- 68 -

I. Discussion

We begi n by expl ai ni ng our vi ew t hat t he st at ut e' s

mandat es appl y t o pet i t i oner s, usi ng t he same tool s of st at ut or y

const r uct i on t hat our col l eagues empl oy t o deci de thi s case at

st ep one of t he Chevron anal ysi s. See Chevron, U. S. A. , I nc. v.

Nat . Res. Def . Counci l , I nc. , 467 U. S. 837, 842–43 ( 1984) . We

al so expl ai n why our col l eagues' par si ng of sect i on 1226( c) , even

i f cor r ect , f ai l s t o suppor t t he concl usi on t hat t he At t or ney

Gener al ' s f ai l ur e t o t ake a cr i mi nal al i en i nt o cust ody i mmedi at el y

upon r el ease somehow el i mi nat es any f ur t her r equi r ement t o compl y

wi t h Congr ess' s mandat es set f or t h i n sect i on 1226( c) . Fi nal l y,

al t hough our col l eagues do not r each Chevr on st ep t wo, see i d.

at 843, and t her ef or e do not consi der t he const i t ut i onal avoi dance

argument t hat was r el i ed upon i n t he vacated panel opi ni on, we do

r each st ep t wo, and t her ef or e br i ef l y expl ai n why t hat avoi dance

ar gument i s not a val i d basi s f or set t i ng asi de t he Boar d of

I mmi gr at i on Appeal s' ( "BI A") r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of sect i on

1226( c) .



- 69 -

A. The Language and Structure of the Statute

8 U. S. C. § 1226( a) gr ant s t he At t or ney Gener al t he

di scr et i on whet her t o t ake i nt o cust ody al i ens char ged wi t h r emoval

and whether t o cont i nue t hat cust ody pendi ng the compl et i on of

r emoval pr oceedi ngs:

( a) Ar r est , det ent i on, and r el easeOn a war r ant i ssued by t he At t orney

General , an al i en may be ar r est ed and detai nedpendi ng a deci si on on whet her t he al i en i s t obe r emoved f r om t he Uni t ed St ates. Except aspr ovi ded i n subsect i on ( c) of t hi s sect i on andpendi ng such deci si on, t he At t or ney Gener al - -

( 1) may cont i nue t o det ai n t he ar r est edal i en; and( 2) may r el ease t he al i en on- -

( A) bond of at l east $1, 500 . . . ;or( B) condi t i onal par ol e . . . .

For cer t ai n al i ens cl assi f i ed by Congr ess as " cri mi nal

al i ens, " however , 8 U. S. C. § 1226( c) r equi r es t he At t or ney Gener al

bot h t o t ake t he al i en i nt o cust ody and t o mai nt ai n t hat cust ody

wi t hout r el ease subj ect t o a nar r ow except i on. Sect i on 1226( c)

states i n f ul l :

( c) Det ent i on of cr i mi nal al i ens( 1) Cust ody

The At t or ney General shal l t ake i nt ocust ody any al i en who- -

( A) i s i nadmi ssi bl e by r eason of

havi ng commi t t ed any of f ensecover ed i n sect i on 1182( a) ( 2)of t hi s t i t l e,

( B) i s depor t abl e by reason ofhavi ng commi t t ed any of f ensecover ed i n sect i on1227(a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i ) , (A) ( i i i ) ,( B) , ( C) , or ( D) of thi s t i t l e,



- 70 -

( C) i s depor t abl e under sect i on1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) of t hi s t i t l eon t he basi s of an of f ense f orwhi ch t he al i en has beensent ence [ si c] t o a t er m ofi mpr i sonment of at l east 1year , or

( D) i s i nadmi ssi bl e under sect i on1182( a) ( 3) ( B) of t hi s t i t l e ordepor t abl e under sect i on1227( a) ( 4) ( B) of t hi s t i t l e,

when t he al i en i s r el eased, wi t houtr egar d t o whet her t he al i en i s r el easedon par ol e, super vi sed r el ease, orpr obat i on, and wi t hout r egar d t o whet hert he al i en may be ar r est ed or i mpr i sonedagai n f or t he same of f ense.

( 2) Rel ease The At t or ney General may r el ease an

al i en descr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) onl y i ft he At t orney General deci des pur suant t osect i on 3521 of t i t l e 18 t hat r el ease oft he al i en f r om cust ody i s necessar y topr ovi de pr ot ect i on t o a wi t ness, apot ent i al wi t ness, a per son cooper at i ngwi t h an i nvest i gat i on i nt o maj or cr i mi nalact i vi t y, or an i mmedi ate f ami l y memberor cl ose associ at e of a wi t ness,

pot ent i al wi t ness, or per son cooper at i ngwi t h such an i nvest i gat i on, and t he al i ensat i sf i es t he At t or ney Gener al t hat t heal i en wi l l not pose a danger t o t hesaf et y of ot her per sons or of pr oper t yand i s l i kel y t o appear f or any schedul edpr oceedi ng. A deci si on r el at i ng t o suchr el ease shal l t ake pl ace i n accor dancewi t h a pr ocedur e t hat consi der s t hesever i t y of t he of f ense commi t t ed by t heal i en.

Each of t he pet i t i oner s i n t hi s case, af t er ar r i vi ng i n

t hi s count r y, was convi ct ed of one of t he cr i mi nal act s l i st ed i n

sect i on 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) - ( D) . See Cast añeda v. Souza, 769 F. 3d 32,

36 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , r eh' g gr ant ed en banc. Ther e i s no di sput e



- 71 -

among t he par t i es t hat sect i on 1226( c) t her ef or e pl ai nl y r equi r ed

t he At t or ney Gener al : ( 1) t o t ake pet i t i oner s i nt o cust ody when

t hey wer e r el eased f r omi ncar cer at i on, and ( 2) t o det ai n t hemunt i l

t he concl usi on of t hei r r espect i ve r emoval pr oceedi ngs. The

quest i on under consi derat i on i s what happens when, as here, t he

At t or ney Gener al does not manage t o det ai n t he cr i mi nal al i en unt i l

af t er t he al i en' s r el ease f r om i ncar cer at i on.

Al l members of our en banc panel appear t o agr ee t hat

t he mandat e of par agr aph ( 2) of sect i on 1226( c) st r i ct l y l i mi t i ng

t he r el ease of cer t ai n persons once detai ned appl i es t o anyone who

i s "an al i en descri bed i n par agr aph ( 1) . " So t hi s case pi vot s, at

l east i n t he f i r st i nst ance, on det er mi ni ng t he meani ng of t hat

phr ase. The BI A, i n a qui t e st r ai ght f or war d f ashi on, const r ued

t hat phr ase t o mean any al i en who sat i sf i es one of t he adj ect i val

descr i pt i ons set f or t h i n subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) of par agr aph ( 1)

( "any al i en who" "i s i nadmi ssi bl e" or "i s depor t abl e" under t he

speci f i ed l aws) . I n r e Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. 117, 121 ( BI A 2001) .

Pet i t i oner s, and now t hr ee of our col l eagues, ar gue i nst ead- - and

t hi s i s cruci al t o t hei r ent i r e ar gument - - t hat t he per t i nent

descri pt i on of t he al i ens i n par agr aph ( 1) cl ear l y i ncl udes as

wel l t he adver bi al phr ase "when t he al i en i s r el eased" ( emphasi s

added) . I n t hi s manner , our col l eagues r eason t hat i f an al i en

was not det ai ned by t he At t orney General i mmedi at el y "when t he



- 72 -

al i en [ was] r el eased, " t hen t hat al i en i s not an al i en "descr i bed"

i n par agr aph ( 1) .

Thi s at t empt at deput i zi ng an adverbi al phr ase i nt o

ser vi ce as a descr i pt i on of t he noun "al i en" pays l i t t l e heed t o

cust omary convent i ons of grammar and synt ax. "An adverb, an

adver bi al phr ase, or an adver bi al cl ause may qual i f y sever al par t s

of speech, but a noun i s not one of t hem. " Theodore M. Bernst ei n,

The Car ef ul Wr i t er , A Modern Gui de t o Engl i sh Usage 23 ( 1965) .

Conver sel y, adj ect i ves ( l i ke t hose i n subpar agr aphs ( A) - ( D) ) ar e

"good f r i ends of t he noun. " H. W. Fowl er , A Di ct i onar y of Moder n

Engl i sh Usage 10 ( Si r Er nest Gower s ed. , 2d ed. 1965) ; see al so

Mer r i am- Webst er ' s Col l egi at e Di ct i onar y 19 ( 11t h ed. 2012) . We do

not mean t o say t hat t here are never ci r cumst ances i n whi ch wr i t ers

mi ght empl oy an adverbi al phr ase i n t he manner empl oyed by our

col l eagues. Poet i c l i cense, af t er al l , knows f ew bounds. Rat her ,

we say mer el y that i f a st r ai ght f or war d r eadi ng of t he t ext

empl oyi ng basi c, convent i onal usages of gr ammar poi nt s di r ect l y at

a gi ven i nt er pr et at i on, i t shoul d t ake some pr et t y heavy l i f t i ng

t o r ej ect t hat i nt er pr et at i on, much l ess t o r ej ect i t as not even

wi t hi n t he zone of r easonabl eness.

Nor i s grammar t he onl y enemy of pet i t i oner s' pr ef er r ed

r eadi ng of t he t ext . St r uct ur e ar gues agai nst pet i t i oner s as wel l .

Af t er st at i ng what t he At t or ney Gener al must do to "any al i en

who- - , " par agr aph ( 1) set s down i n f our separ at el y i ndent ed and



- 73 -

l et t er ed subsect i ons t he f our cl auses t hat pl ai nl y descr i be an

al i en, r el egat i ng t he adver bi al "when" phr ase back t o unl et t er ed

and uni ndent ed t ext . We t hus not onl y have f our adj ect i val cl auses

t hat obvi ousl y descr i be t he noun "al i en" and one adver bi al phr ase

t hat l ess r eadi l y does so, but we al so have a f or mat t hat l i t er al l y

and vi sual l y set s t he f our descri pt i ons apar t f r om t he adver bi al

phr ase. Thi s st r uct ur e di r ect l y r ei nf or ces t he r eadi ng of t he

"when" phr ase as qual i f yi ng t he ver b " t ake" i n t he cl ause " [ t ] he

At t or ney Gener al shal l t ake i nt o cust ody" r at her t han as descr i bi ng

"any al i en[ s] . "

I n so obser vi ng, we do not mean t o over st ate t he case.

Our col l eagues make a f ai r poi nt t hat t he st atut e mi ght have been

more cl ear had paragr aph ( 2) r ef er r ed onl y t o subparagr aphs

( A) - ( D) . Of cour se, t he f act t hat l anguage mi ght have been more

cl ear - - as i t al ways coul d be- - does not mean t hat i t i s not cl ear

enough. See Caraco Pharm. Labs. , Lt d. v. Novo Nordi sk A/ S, 132 S.

Ct . 1670, 1682 ( 2012) ( " [ T] he mer e possi bi l i t y of cl ear er phr asi ng

cannot def eat t he most nat ur al r eadi ng of a st at ut e . . . . ") ; cf .

I n r e Fahey, 779 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( expl ai ni ng t hat a

st atut e' s meani ng was cl ear even t hough t he st atut ory l anguage

coul d not "be r ead as ent i r el y excl udi ng t he possi bi l i t y" t hat a

compet i ng- - but ul t i mat el y unper suasi ve- - i nt er pr et at i on was

cor r ect ) . Rel at edl y, we not e t hat Congr ess has on occasi on, wi t hi n

t he I mmi gr at i on and Nat i onal i t y Act ( " I NA") , r ef er enced a gener al



- 74 -

subpar agr aph whi l e cl ear l y i nt endi ng t o r ef er onl y t o t he i nset

subcl auses wi t hi n t hat subpar agr aph. See, e. g. , 8 U. S. C.

§ 1153( b) ( 5) ( B) ( i ) ( r ef er enci ng 8 U. S. C. § 1153( b) ( 5) ( A) but

cl ear l y i nt endi ng t o cross- r ef er ence onl y t he i nset cl auses ( i ) -

( i i i ) wi t hi n ( A) ) .

We al so f i nd i t si gni f i cant t hat t he l anguage and

st r uct ur e of sect i on 1226( c) as a whol e r eveal s t hat Congr ess

act ual l y di d speci f y whi ch cri mi nal al i ens descri bed i n

par agr aph ( 1) may be r el eased not wi t hst andi ng t hose al i ens' pr i or

commi ssi on of ( A) - ( D) cr i mes. I t descr i bed t hose al i ens i n

par agr aph ( 2) . And t hat descr i pt i on ( of per sons connect ed t o

gover nment wi t nesses or i nvest i gat i ons) pl ai nl y does not i ncl ude

pet i t i oner s. Cf . TRW I nc. v. Andr ews, 534 U. S. 19, 28 ( 2001)

( "Wher e Congr ess expl i ci t l y enumer at es cer t ai n except i ons t o a

gener al pr ohi bi t i on, addi t i onal except i ons ar e not t o be i mpl i ed,

i n t he absence of evi dence of a cont r ar y l egi sl at i ve i nt ent . "

( quot i ng Andr us v. Gl over Const r . Co. , 446 U. S. 608, 616–617

( 1980) ) ) .

We have good company i n concl udi ng t hat i t i s r easonabl e

t o r ead sect i on 1226( c) i n t hi s manner . I n descr i bi ng t he st at ut e

i n t he f i r st sent ence of Demor e, t he Supr eme Cour t st at ed t hat

sect i on 1226( c) "provi des t hat ' [ t ] he At t or ney Gener al shal l t ake

i nt o cust ody any al i en who' i s r emovabl e f r om t hi s count r y because

he has been convi ct ed of one of a speci f i ed set of cr i mes. " Demor e,



- 75 -

538 U. S. at 513. As pet i t i oner s woul d have i t , t he Cour t shoul d

have added "and has j ust been r el eased" as par t of i t s descr i pt i on

of t he al i en t o whom t he mandat es wer e i nt ended t o appl y. But i t

di d not , pr esumabl y because i t was f ocused on i t s r ecogni t i on t hat

Congr ess' s goal was t o end t he pr act i ce of " r el easi ng depor t abl e

cr i mi nal al i ens on bond" i n or der t o avoi d what Congr ess deci ded

was "an unaccept abl e r at e of f l i ght . " I d. at 520. Of cour se, t he

Cour t ' s descri pt i on of t he st at ut e was not a hol di ng. I t cer t ai nl y

shows, t hough, t hat a pr et t y good r eader of st at ut es easi l y r eads

t he l anguage as we do. Cf . S. D. War r en Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envt l .

Prot . , 547 U. S. 370, 377 ( 2006) ( l ooki ng t o how t he cour t

pr evi ousl y t ended t o use t he t er m "di schar ge" i n di ct a under t he

Cl ean Wat er Act ) .

I n gaugi ng t he i mpor t of t he f or egoi ng t ext ual anal ysi s,

we must al so expr ess a r eservat i on concer ni ng our col l eagues'

i nt er pr et at i ve met hodol ogy. At sever al st eps i n t hei r anal ysi s,

t hey conf r ont an i nt er pr et at i ve gui de that cut s agai nst t hem( e. g. ,

adver bs usual l y do not descr i be nouns, t he l ayout of t he

subheadi ngs suppor t s a gr ammat i cal r eadi ng, t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

shor t - hand summar y of t he st at ut e i s i nf or mat i ve) . I n each case,

our col l eagues cor r ect l y not e t hat t he gui de i s not al ways

di sposi t i ve. So f ar , so good. They t hen, however , pr oceed f or war d

as i f t he i mpor t of t hose gui des car r i es no cont i nui ng wei ght i n

t he anal ysi s and so does not undermi ne a concl usi on t hat t he



- 76 -

st at ut e i s act ual l y pl ai nl y t o t he cont r ar y. We vi ew t hat i mpor t ,

i nst ead, as an accumul at i ng wei ght capabl e of bei ng of f set onl y by

evi dence that speaks di r ect l y and unambi guousl y t o t he cont r ar y.

Si l ence, assumpt i ons, i nf er ences, and ambi t i ousl y const r uct ed

l i nes of r easoni ng t hat wer e l i kel y never wi t hi n t he cont empl at i on

of any dr af t er ser ve poor l y as subst i t ut es f or such evi dence. See

Rhode I sl and v. Nar r aganset t I ndi an Tr i be, 19 F. 3d 685, 698 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) ( "[ L] egi sl at i ve hi stor y t hat i s i n i t sel f i nconcl usi ve

wi l l r ar el y, i f ever , over come t he wor ds of a st at ut e. ") .

Thi s i s not t o say t hat we end our own i nqui r y at t hi s

poi nt . To t he cont r ar y, we accept t he not i on t hat most st at ut es

must be r ead wi t h a sense of what Congr ess was t r yi ng t o do, and

t hat such a sense may be der i ved f r omknowl edge gai ned out si de the

f our cor ner s of t he t ext , keepi ng i n mi nd t he wei ght y rol e t hat

t he t ext must cont i nue t o pl ay. We al so agr ee wi t h our

col l eagues- - and wi t h t he BI A- - t hat t he st at ut or y l anguage i s not

so pl ai n as t o f or ecl ose al l ext r a- t ext ual i nqui r y. So, f or t hat

r eason, and par t i cul ar l y because t he act ual l anguage at i ssue

t ouches upon mat t er s of bot h per sonal l i ber t y and t he cont r ol of

our nat i on' s bor der s, we thi nk i t r easonabl e to l ook next at t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y t o det er mi ne whet her one can say t hat t he

st r ai ght f or war d, gr ammat i cal l y convent i onal r eadi ng of t he st at ut e

comport s wi t h a reasonabl e i nt erpr etat i on of what Congr ess was

t r yi ng t o accompl i sh.



- 77 -

B. Legislative History

Our r evi ew of t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y begi ns wi t h t he

most di r ect l y per t i nent l egi sl at i ve hi st or y: t he conf er ence r epor t

t o t he I I RI RA. Regar di ng sect i on 1226( c) ( i . e. , sect i on 236( c) of

t he l aw) , t he r epor t stat es i n f ul l :

New sect i on 236( c) pr ovi des t hat t he At t or neyGeneral must detai n an al i en who i si nadmi ssi bl e under sect i on 212( a) ( 2) ordepor t abl e under new sect i on 237( a) ( 2) . Thi sr equi r ement does not appl y t o an al i endepor t abl e under sect i on 237( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) ont he basi s of an of f ense f or whi ch t he al i en

has not been sent enced t o at l east 1 year i npr i son. Thi s det ent i on mandat e appl i eswhenever such an al i en i s r el eased f r omi mpr i sonment , r egar dl ess of t he ci r cumst ancesof t he r el ease. Thi s subsect i on al so pr ovi dest hat such an al i en may be rel eased f r om t heAt t or ney Gener al ' s cust ody onl y i f t heAt t orney General deci des i n accor dance wi t h 18U. S. C. 3521 t hat r el ease i s necessary topr ovi de pr ot ect i on t o a wi t ness, pot ent i alwi t ness, a per son cooperat i ng wi t h an

i nvest i gat i on i nt o maj or cri mi nal acti vi t y, ora f ami l y member or cl ose associ ate of such awi t ness or cooper at or , and such r el ease wi l lnot pose a danger t o t he saf et y of ot herper sons or of pr oper t y, and t he al i en i sl i kel y t o appear f or any schedul ed pr oceedi ng.

H. R. Rep. No. 104- 828, 1996 WL 563320, at *210- 11 (1996) ( Conf .

Rep. ) .

I t i s beyond di sput e that t he phr ase "such an al i en" as

used i n t he t hi r d sent ence of t he conf er ence r epor t r ef er s back to

t he al i ens who ar e descr i bed i n t he f i r st t wo sent ences, nei t her

of whi ch cont ai ns ( as ei t her adj ect i ve or adver b) any r equi r ement



- 78 -

t hat t he per son be r ecent l y r el eased. The t hi r d sent ence si mpl y

t el l s us when t he new cust ody mandate appl i es t o "such an al i en. "

I t i s al so ent i r el y f ai r t o pr esume t hat t he same phr ase "such an

al i en" means t he same t hi ng i n t he f our t h sent ence' s descr i pt i on

of what t he st at ut e "al so" pr ovi des f or : t he no- r el ease mandat e.

Thi s i s, of cour se, si mpl y another way of sayi ng t hat t he al i en

"descr i bed" i n sect i on 1226( c) ( 2) ' s no- r el ease mandat e i s an al i en

descr i bed i n 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) - ( D) - - t he same cl ass of al i en who i s

subj ect t o t he cust ody mandat e whenever r el eased. And si nce

pet i t i oner s wer e admi t t edl y subj ect t o t he cust ody mandat e ( i . e. ,

each i s "such an al i en" ) t hey ar e t her ef or e subj ect t o what sect i on

1226( c) ( 2) al so pr ovi des f or such an al i en: t he no- r el ease mandat e.

We recogni ze t hat our col l eagues manage t o read even

t hi s di r ect l y aut hor i t at i ve l egi sl at i ve hi stor y as i ndi cat i ng t hat

Congr ess i nt ended t o l eave t he no- r el ease mandate cont i ngent on

how qui ckl y the At t orney General compl i ed wi t h t he detent i on

mandate. Whi l e we have much di f f i cul t y seei ng t hi s, we need onl y

f or pr esent pur poses pr ot est t hat such a r eadi ng i s har dl y

compel l i ng. I t i s our col l eagues, not us, who must cl ai m a

monopol y on r easonabl eness.

We move next t o t he 1995 Senat e Repor t t hat di r ect l y

set s f or t h t he subst ance of congr essi onal concer ns r esul t i ng i n

t he enact ment of t he I I RI RA. S. Rep. No. 104- 48 ( 1995) . Tr eat i ng

t he repor t as i f i t wer e Oz' s man behi nd t he gr een cur t ai n, our



- 79 -

col l eagues ur ge t he r eader t o pay no at t ent i on t o i t . But t he

Supr eme Cour t i t sel f i n Demor e di r ect l y t ur ned t o t hi s r epor t f or

pr eci sel y t he same pur pose t hat gui des us t o l ook at t he r epor t :

under st andi ng t he ai ms of Congr ess i n enact i ng sect i on 1226( c) .

See Demore, 538 U. S. at 518–21 & n. 4. The Cour t - - l i ke us- - has

r ead t hi s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y as pl ai nl y evi denci ng "Congr ess'

concer n t hat , even wi t h i ndi vi dual i zed screeni ng, r el easi ng

deport abl e cr i mi nal al i ens on bond woul d l ead t o an unaccept abl e

r at e of f l i ght . " I d. at 520. For exampl e, t he Senat e Repor t

emphasi zed t hat " [ u] ndet ai ned cr i mi nal al i ens wi t h depor t at i on

or der s of t en abscond upon r ecei vi ng [ a not i ce of r emoval ] . . . .

( Thi s not i ce i s humor ousl y ref er r ed [ t o] by some I NS per sonnel as

t he 72 hour s ' r un not i ce. ' ) " S. Rep. No. 104- 48, at 2- 3; see

Demore, 538 U. S. at 518- 19 & n. 4, 521. The dat a bef ore Congr ess

l i kewi se suppor t ed i t s concer n t hat i mmi gr at i on j udges f ar ed

poor l y i n t r yi ng t o pr edi ct whi ch al i ens woul d t ake f l i ght once

I NS t ook st eps t o r emove t hem. S. Rep. No. 104- 48, at 2 ( "Over 20

per cent of nondet ai ned cr i mi nal al i ens f ai l t o appear f or

depor t at i on pr oceedi ngs. " ) . And t he Senat e Repor t ' s

r ecommendat i on t hat "Congr ess shoul d consi der r equi r i ng t hat al l

aggr avated f el ons be detai ned pendi ng deport at i on" due t o " t he

hi gh r at e of no- shows f or t hose cr i mi nal al i ens r el eased on bond, "



- 80 -

S. Rep. No. 104- 48, at 32 ( emphasi s added) , di r ect l y addr essed- -

and i s cer t ai nl y ent i r el y consi st ent wi t h- - t hi s concer n.

Nor di d Congr ess gi ve any reason t o t hi nk t hat t hi s

concern di sappear ed merel y because t he cr i mi nal al i en was not

det ai ned f or a per i od of t i me bef or e depor t at i on pr oceedi ngs began.

To t he cont r ar y, t he "depor t abl e cr i mi nal al i ens [ who] f ai l ed t o

appear f or t hei r r emoval hear i ngs, " Demore, 538 U. S. at 519, were

al l t hose al i ens who wer e not bei ng hel d i n I NS cust ody. I n t hi s

r espect , i t i s hel pf ul t o keep i n mi nd t he act ual i nt er pr et at i on

of t he st at ut e t hat pet i t i oner s ur ge. They r epeat edl y ar gue t hat

Congr ess woul d not have been concerned about al l owi ng i mmi gr at i on

j udges t o predi ct f l i ght r i sk f or cr i mi nal al i ens who have " l ong

si nce r et ur ned t o t hei r communi t i es. " But t hei r r eadi ng of t he

st at ut e woul d mean t hat al l cr i mi nal al i ens who avoi d det ent i on

"when . . . r el eased" woul d be ent i t l ed t o a shot at convi nci ng an

i mmi gr at i on j udge t hat t he al i en woul d vol unt ar i l y sur r ender i f

r emoval i s or dered. And t hi s woul d be so whether t he al i en has

been f r ee f r ompr i or cr i mi nal cust ody f or a week or f or f i ve year s,

and no mat t er what t he al i en has done post - r el ease.

Of cour se, one coul d argue t hat t he i mmi gr at i on j udges

wi l l not r el ease obvi ous f l i ght r i sks. But t hat i s pr esumabl y

what i mmi gr at i on j udges were t r yi ng t o do bef ore Congr ess concl uded

t hat i t had i nsuf f i ci ent conf i dence i n t he i mmi gr at i on j udges'

abi l i t y t o make ad hoc pr edi ct i ons, and opt ed f or t he cat egor i cal



- 81 -

t r eat ment of f our gr oups of al i ens who ar e most l i kel y t o be

r emoved. To now say t hat t he execut i ve, mer el y by f ai l i ng t o

det ai n a cr i mi nal al i en pr ompt l y, can r evi ve t he i mmi gr at i on

j udges' abi l i t y t o pi ck and choose who get s r el eased on bai l woul d

be a r esul t di r ect l y at odds wi t h what Congr ess pl ai nl y sought t o

achi eve. Cf . Ki ng v. Bur wel l , 135 S. Ct . 2480, 2496 ( 2015)

( r ej ect i ng an i nt er pr et at i on of t he Af f or dabl e Car e Act t hat woul d

l ead t o t he "r esul t t hat Congr ess pl ai nl y meant t o avoi d") .

Nor does i t hel p pet i t i oner s t o ar gue t hat Congr ess' s

concer n about r eci di vi smi s somehow i nappl i cabl e cat egor i cal l y f or

t hose cr i mi nal al i ens who have " l i ved i n t he communi t y" f or some

undef i ned per i od of t i me post - r el ease. I n t he f i r st pl ace, t her e

i s no compel l i ng evi dence i n t he recor d t hat Congr ess meant

sect i on 1226( c) t o appl y onl y when bot h reasons f or i t s enact ment

- - avoi di ng f l i ght and r e- of f ense- - woul d be ser ved. Second, j ust

as Congr ess f ound unaccept abl e t he mer e possi bi l i t y of r eci di vi sm

among t hi s cat egor y of cr i mi nal al i ens dur i ng t he per i od bet ween

r el ease f r om cr i mi nal cust ody and r emoval adj udi cat i on, t her e i s

no basi s i n t he r ecor d f or pr esumi ng t hat Congr ess f el t t hat

i mmi gr at i on j udges woul d be i n a posi t i on t o di scount t hat

possi bi l i t y mer el y by not i ng t hat t he cr i mi nal al i en had been

r el eased some t i me ago. The i mmi gr at i on j udges wi l l both l ack

much knowl edge about what t he cr i mi nal al i en has been doi ng si nce

r el ease and have no abi l i t y t o pr edi ct f ut ur e behavi or t hat i s



- 82 -

mat er i al l y gr eat er t han t he abi l i t y f ound by Congr ess t o be

i nsuf f i ci ent .

The l egi sl at i ve r ecor d, l i ke Conan Doyl e' s dog t hat di d

not bark, al so conveys much by what i t does not say. See Chi som

v. Roemer , 501 U. S. 380, 396 & n. 23 ( 1991) . I magi ne, f or exampl e,

t hat pet i t i oner s wer e cor r ect : i f a cri mi nal al i en wer e not

det ai ned i mmedi at el y upon r el ease f r om pr i son, t hat al i en woul d

have a r i ght t o convi nce an i mmi gr at i on j udge t hat t he al i en i s

not a f l i ght r i sk. And, as our col l eagues r ead t he st at ut e, t hi s

r i ght woul d bel ong t o ever y al i en not detai ned upon r el ease,

whet her or not t he al i en set t l ed i n any communi t y, or t ook ef f or t s

t o hi de, or even went on a cr i me spr ee. I f t hat had been Congr ess' s

ai m, i t i s unl i kel y t hat t her e woul d be no acknowl edgement of such

a l oophol e, nor any l anguage i n t he st at ut e def i ni ng and l i mi t i ng

t he l oophol e.

Si mi l ar l y, i f t he ent i r e mandat or y det ent i on r egi me

hi nged on whet her t he cr i mi nal al i en was det ai ned "when . . .

r el eased, " one woul d have expect ed Congr ess t o pay some at t ent i on

t o def i ni ng t hat t erm. How much t i me i s t oo much? What i f t he

al i en hi des? What i f t he al i en commi t s a new cr i me? What i f t he

st at e pr i son does not cooper at e, maki ng i t i mpossi bl e f or f eder al

agent s t o know when t he al i en wi l l l eave st at e cust ody? Ther e i s

no evi dence t hat Congr ess vi ewed i t s l egi sl at i on as r ai si ng such

quest i ons, al l of whi ch woul d have been nose- on- t he- f ace obvi ous



- 83 -

had Congr ess i nt ended the st atut e t o be read as pet i t i oner s woul d

have us read i t . Pr eci sel y t o t he cont r ar y, t he ent i r e f ocus was

br oadl y and cat egor i cal l y on "[ u] ndet ai ned cr i mi nal al i ens. " See

S. Rep. No. 104- 48, at 2.

Par t i cul ar l y not ewor t hy i n t hi s r egar d i s t he f act t hat

t he dr af t er s wer e wel l awar e of - - and concer ned about - - t he f act

t hat cr i mi nal al i ens wer e avoi di ng det ent i on because some st at e

and l ocal aut hor i t i es r ef used t o l et I NS know when cr i mi nal al i ens

wer e bei ng r el eased. See S. Rep. No. 104- 48, at 16- 17, 22. Yet ,

i f pet i t i oner s ar e cor r ect , Congr ess gave t he st at e and l ocal

aut hor i t i es host i l e t o Congr ess' s ai m compl et e abi l i t y t o

f r ust r at e pur sui t of t hat ai m.

Our knowl edge of how Congr ess chooses t o af f ect t he

r emoval pr ocess of cr i mi nal al i ens i n ot her pr ovi si ons of t he U. S.

Code dovet ai l s wi t h our under st andi ng of Congr ess' s pur pose i n

enact i ng sect i on 1226( c) . For exampl e, Congr ess, i n t he I I RI RA,

bar r ed f r om el i gi bi l i t y f or cancel l at i on of r emoval any per manent

r esi dent al i en convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed f el ony. 42 See Pub. L.

No. 104- 208, 110 St at . 3009- 594 ( cr eat i ng 8 U. S. C. § 1229b( a) ( 3) ) ;

Roj as, 23 I . & N. Dec. at 121- 22. Congr ess al so st r i pped cour t s

of j ur i sdi ct i on " t o r evi ew any f i nal or der of r emoval agai nst an

42 An al i en who i s " deport abl e by r eason of havi ng commi t t ed"an aggr avat ed f el ony f al l s under sect i on 1226( c) ( 1) ( B) . Compar e8 U. S. C. § 1226( c) ( 1) ( B) , wi t h i d. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i i ) .



- 84 -

al i en who i s r emovabl e by r eason of havi ng commi t t ed" cer t ai n

cr i mi nal of f enses t hat ar e al so l i st ed as pr edi cat e of f enses under

sect i on 1226( c) ( 1) ( A) - ( C) . See 8 U. S. C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C) ; Roj as,

23 I & N Dec. at 122. 43 The al i ens descr i bed i n ( A) - ( D) ar e

t her ef or e mor e l i kel y t o l ose- - and mor e l i kel y to expect t o l ose

- - i n a r emoval pr oceedi ng, t hus i ncreasi ng t he i ncent i ve t o f l ee

once they are on I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms Enf orcement ' s ( " I CE" )

r adar . I t t her ef or e seems nat ur al t o concl ude t hat Congr ess want ed

t hese al i ens t o be i n cust ody when t he r emoval pr oceedi ng

concl uded, whether or not t hey were t aken i nt o cust ody r i ght when

pr evi ousl y r el eased.

Congr ess' s f ocus i n r el at ed l egi sl at i on on maki ng i t

mor e di f f i cul t f or cri mi nal al i ens t o successf ul l y cont est a

r emoval or der al so r ei nf or ces t he vi ew t hat Congr ess ai med t o deal

wi t h such al i ens cat egor i cal l y. I n saddl i ng cri mi nal al i ens wi t h

many bur dens not i mposed on al i ens who resi de i n t he Uni t ed St at es

43 The I NA cont ai ns numerous ot her exampl es of ways i n whi chCongr ess has made i t mor e di f f i cul t f or cr i mi nal al i ens t o avoi dr emoval . For i nst ance, i n r emoval pr oceedi ngs, l awf ul per manentr esi dent s convi ct ed of cr i mes i nvol vi ng moral t ur pi t ude may notqual i f y f or a di scret i onar y wai ver of r emovabi l i t y, becausecommi ssi on of a cr i me of mor al t ur pi t ude t ol l s t he accrual of t he

seven year s of r esi dence r equi r ed f or cancel l at i on of r emoval .See 8 U. S. C. § 1229b( d) ( 1) . Ot her al i ens convi ct ed of a cr i mei nvol vi ng mor al t ur pi t ude may not qual i f y f or cancel l at i on andadj ust ment t o l awf ul per manent r esi dent st at us. See i d.§ 1229b( b) ( 1) ( C) . Addi t i onal l y, aggr avat ed f el ons may not seekasyl um, see i d. § 1158( b) ( 2) ( A) ( i i ) , ( b) ( 2) ( B) ( i ) , nor may t heyseek persecut i on- based wi t hhol di ng of r emoval i f t hey have beensent enced t o f i ve year s or mor e i n pr i son, see i d. § 1231( b) ( 3) ( B) .



- 85 -

wi t hout commi t t i ng cr i mes vi ewed by Congr ess as especi al l y

r el evant t o i mmi gr at i on st at us, see supr a not e 43, Congr ess has

dr awn no di st i nct i on based on when t he al i en i s det ai ned.

Evi dence of l i vi ng i n t he communi t y f or year s post - r el ease does

not el i mi nat e t he l egal di sabi l i t i es i n r emoval pr oceedi ngs

i mposed by t he pr i or commi ssi on of cer t ai n cr i mi nal act s. On t he

cont r ar y, dur i ng t he year s pr ecedi ng t he I I RI RA and wi t hi n t he

I I RI RA i t sel f , Congr ess act i vel y sought t o nar r ow t he gr oup of

cri mi nal al i ens el i gi bl e f or r el i ef based on dur at i on of r esi dency.

For exampl e, pr i or t o t he I I RI RA, many al i ens wi t h "a l awf ul

unr el i nqui shed domi ci l e of seven consecut i ve year s" coul d seek

r el i ef f r om r emoval despi t e t hei r pr i or cr i mi nal act i vi t y. See

I NS v. St . Cyr , 533 U. S. 289, 295 ( 2001) ( quot i ng sect i on 212( c)

of t he I NA, f or mer l y codi f i ed as 8 U. S. C. § 1182( c) ) . Thi s sor t

of r el i ef had "gr eat pr act i cal i mpor t ance, " i d. , and "t he cl ass of

al i ens whose cont i nued r esi dence i n t hi s count r y . . . depended on

t hei r el i gi bi l i t y f or § 212( c) r el i ef [ was] ext r emel y l ar ge, and

not sur pr i si ngl y, a subst ant i al per cent age of t hei r appl i cat i ons"

were gr ant ed, i d. at 295- 96. Af t er amendment s t o t he I NA i n 1990

and 1996 nar r owed t he avai l abi l i t y of sect i on 212( c) r el i ef , t he

I I RI RA el i mi nat ed i t and r epl aced i t wi t h an even nar r ower cl ass

of l awf ul l y admi t t ed permanent r esi dent al i ens who had been

l awf ul l y pr esent f or at l east f i ve year s and had not been convi ct ed

of an aggr avat ed f el ony. See i d. at 297; 8 U. S. C. § 1229b( a) .



- 86 -

We have al so consi der ed t he l anguage gover ni ng

secti on 1226( c)' s ef f ecti ve dat e, I I RI RA, § 303( b) ( 2) , 110 St at .

3009, 3009- 586, and t he I I RI RA' s Tr ansi t i on Per i od Cust ody Rul es

( "TPCR" ) , I I RI RA, § 303( b) ( 3) , 110 St at . at 3009- 586 t o - 587. 44 We

agr ee wi t h our col l eagues t hat such l anguage, as par t of t he ver y

st at ut e at i ssue, pr ovi des a sour ce of pot ent i al i nsi ght i nt o t he

meani ng of i t s compani on t erms. See Gut i er r ez v. Ada, 528 U. S.

250, 255 ( 2000) . That i nsi ght r uns i n f avor of t he i nt er pr et at i on

we adopt .

Most not abl y, t he ef f ect i ve dat e pr ovi si on st at es t hat

sect i on 1226( c) "shal l appl y t o i ndi vi dual s r el eased af t er " t he

expi r at i on of t he TPCR. I I RI RA, § 303( b) ( 2) , 110 St at . at 3009-

586. That cl ause woul d be super f l uous i f pet i t i oner s wer e cor r ect

t hat t he det ent i on- wi t hout - r el ease mandat e appl i es onl y t o al i ens

who are pi cked up r i ght away, because i mmedi at e det ent i on woul d be

i mpossi bl e f or al i ens who had al r eady been r el eased pr i or t o t he

TPCR' s expi r at i on dat e. See Nat ' l Ass' n of Home Bui l der s v. Def s.

of Wi l dl i f e, 551 U. S. 644, 669 (2007) ( " [ W] e have caut i oned agai nst

r eadi ng a t ext i n a way t hat makes par t of i t r edundant . " ) . Whi l e

we acknowl edge the Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecent r ei t er at i on t hat i t s

44 The TPCR i mposed a mor e permi ss i ve regi me t hat , due t oCongr ess' s concerns about bed space shor t ages, governed bonddet er mi nat i ons f or t wo year s af t er t he I I RI RA' s ef f ect i ve dat e andpr i or t o sect i on 1226( c) ' s f ul l i mpl ement at i on. See I I RI RA,§ 303( b) ( 3) , 110 St at . at 3009- 586 t o - 587.



- 87 -

"pref er ence f or avoi di ng sur pl usage const r uct i ons i s not

absol ut e, " Ki ng, 135 S. Ct . at 2492 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) , t he canon pr ovi des at t he ver y l east yet another t humb

t o be added t o gr ammar , st r uct ur e, and l egi sl at i ve pur pose on t he

scal e i n f avor of our i nt er pr et at i on. 45

That t humb i s par t i cul ar l y l ar ge i n t hi s case, where

( unl i ke i n Ki ng) , Chevron appl i es. See Ki ng, 135 S. Ct . at 2488–

89 ( decl i ni ng t o appl y the Chevr on t wo- st ep f r amework because i f

"Congr ess wi shed t o assi gn [ i nt er pr et at i on] t o an agency, i t sur el y

woul d have done so expr essl y") . Here, we are f i r st asked whether

Congr ess has spoken cl ear l y and di r ect l y to t he quest i on at i ssue,

and second whet her t he BI A' s i nt er pr etat i on i s a r easonabl e one.

The surpl usage caused by pet i t i oners' i nt er pret at i on at once makes

t he i nt er pr et at i ve pat h t hey wal k l ess di r ect and t he BI A' s r eadi ng

i n Roj as mor e r easonabl e. Cf . Nat ' l Cr edi t Uni on Admi n. v. Fi r st

Nat ' l Bank & Tr . Co. , 522 U. S. 479, 501 ( 1998) ( r ej ect i ng, under

Chevron st ep one, agency' s i nt er pr et at i on i n par t because i t made

"t he phr ase ' common bond' surpl usage") .

45 We agr ee wi t h t he act ual hol di ng i n Saysana v. Gi l l en, 590F. 3d 7, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) , t hat sect i on 1226( c) does not appl y t oal i ens r el eased f r om cust ody f or t hei r ( A) t hr ough ( D) of f ensespr i or t o t he I I RI RA' s ef f ect i ve dat e. To t he ext ent t hat one mi ghtgl ean f r om Saysana any i nf er ences concer ni ng t he i ssue pr esent edher e f or t he f i r st t i me, such i nf er ences woul d not be bi ndi ng onour en banc cour t . See Uni t ed St ates v. Gonzal ez- Ar i mont , 268F. 3d 8, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .



- 88 -

Even put t i ng t o one si de t he sur pl usage r ami f i cat i on,

t he TPCR pr ovi des no suppor t f or pet i t i oner s' posi t i on because i t

si mpl y r ai ses t he same i nt er pr et at i ve quest i on t hat sect i on

1226( c) poses: do t he cust ody and no- r el ease mandat es dur i ng t he

t r ansi t i on per i od appl y i f t her e i s a del ay i n det ai ni ng t he al i en?

Our col l eagues never t hel ess at t empt t o gl ean f r om t he TPCR t wo

poi nt s of suppor t t hat war r ant our consi der at i on.

Fi r st , t hey poi nt out t hat t he t r ansi t i on r ul es set f or t h

i n t he TPCR cont ai n l anguage st at i ng t hat , shoul d t he At t or ney

Gener al as ant i ci pat ed i nvoke t he t r ansi t i on r ul es, § 1226( c) wi l l

appl y onl y t o per sons r el eased af t er expi r at i on of t he t r ansi t i on

per i od. The r ul es cont ai n no si mi l ar pr ovi si on st at i ng t hat t he

mandat es i n t he t r ansi t i on r ul es t hemsel ves appl y onl y t o al i ens

r el eased af t er t he t r ansi t i on r ul es become ef f ect i ve. Thi s means,

our col l eagues r eason, t hat under our i nt er pr et at i on t he br eadt h

of t he mandat e' s dut y i mposed on t he At t orney General under t he

permanent r ul es of sect i on 1226( c) woul d be "l ess sweepi ng t han

t he supposedl y more f l exi bl e TPCR mandat e' s bar had been" even

t hough t he TPCR was i ntended t o accommodat e t he At t orney General ' s

need t o r amp up r esour ces. The way t o f i x t hi s "anomal ous" r esul t ,

our col l eagues argue, i s t o r ead t he TPCR' s bar on r el easi ng al i ens

t o appl y onl y t o t hose t aken i nt o cust ody "when . . . r el eased. "

And i f one reads t he TPCR t hat way, by anal ogy one shoul d read

sect i on 1226( c) t hat way. Anomal y cur ed.



- 89 -

I n t hi s manner , our col l eagues i magi ne a pr obl em t hat

does not exi st i n or der t o advocat e a sol ut i on t hat i s not

r equi r ed. Ther e i s no need t o i nt er pr et t he TPCR i n t hi s manner

t o make i t s dut i es "l ess sweepi ng" t han t hose i mposed by sect i on

1226( c) . The TPCR, unl i ke sect i on 1226( c) , expr essl y al l ows t he

At t or ney Gener al t o rel ease any det ai ned al i ens who f al l i nt o two

of t he f our gr oups of al i ens descr i bed i n both t he TPCR and sect i on

1226( c) . Our col l eagues of f er no evi dence at al l est abl i shi ng

t hat t he ef f ect of t hi s cat egor i cal excl usi on does not swamp

what ever bur den mi ght ar i se as a r esul t of t he t heor et i cal

possi bi l i t y t hat t he At t or ney Gener al wi t hi n t he br i ef t wo- year

t r ansi t i on per i od mi ght pi ck up cr i mi nal al i ens who had not been

r el eased f r om cr i mi nal cust ody dur i ng t hat per i od.

Mor e f undament al l y, our col l eagues' pr emi se t hat

l anguage i n the TPCR need be r endered super f l uous i n or der t o cur e

a percei ved "anomal y" bet ween t he TPCR and sect i on 1226( c)

i ncor r ect l y pr esumes t hat i t was possi bl e t o st ar t up a new r egi me,

wi t h di f f er i ng t r ansi t i on r ul es, and not have some "anomal i es. "

For exampl e, what was t o be done wi t h an al i en who was r el eased

f r om pr i son dur i ng t he t r ansi t i on per i od, and who then moved f or

bai l af t er t he expi r at i on of t he t r ansi t i on per i od? Under t he

l anguage of t he tr ansi t i on r ul es- - and under ei t her i nt er pr et at i on

of sect i on 1226( c) pr of f er ed i n t hi s case- - such a per son woul d

suddenl y have a shot at bonded r el ease t hat he mi ght not have had



- 90 -

i f he had moved f or bai l bef or e t he t r ansi t i on per i od had expi r ed

( i . e. , t he sect i on 1226( c) det ent i on mandat es woul d be " l ess

sweepi ng" ) . See I n r e Adeni j i , 22 I . & N. Dec. 1102, 1110- 11 ( BI A

1999) . Cer t ai nl y such an anomal y pr ovi des no l i cense t o r e- wr i t e

sect i on 1226( c) . I t does, however , make cl ear t hat some such

anomal i es ar i se i nevi t abl y f r om t he need t o have some ar bi t r ar y

cut - of f s f or i mpl ement i ng new pr ogr ams.

Second, our col l eagues compl ai n t hat , i n some i nst ances,

t he BI A' s r eadi ng of sect i on 1226( c) woul d have "de- l i nked" or

"mi sal i gned" t he cust ody and no- r el ease aspect s of sect i on 1226 i f

t he TPCR t r ansi t i on r ul es had not been i nvoked because t he cl ause

i n t he TPCR l i mi t i ng sect i on 1226( c) as a whol e t o per sons r el eased

af t er t he TPCR became ef f ect i ve woul d not have been t r i ggered. As

an exampl e, our col l eagues poi nt t o a suspect ed t er r or i st descr i bed

i n subsect i on 1226( c) ( 1) ( D) who has never been i mpr i soned and who

i s r oami ng t he st r eet s. Under t he BI A' s i nt er pr et at i on, t he

At t or ney Gener al woul d r eserve t he abi l i t y to deci de whet her t o

ar r est such a per son because t he cust ody mandat e woul d not have

been t r i gger ed by a pr i or r el ease. Once t he At t orney Gener al

deci ded t he suspect ed t er r or i st shoul d be det ai ned, under t he BI A' s

r eadi ng of sect i on 1226( c) ( 2) , as i t woul d appl y had t he t r ansi t i on

per i od not been i mpl ement ed, no i mmi grat i on j udge woul d have t he

di screti on t o r el ease t he al i en unl ess t he al i en pr evai l ed i n t he

r emoval pr oceedi ng. Our col l eagues appar ent l y t hi nk t hi s i s an



- 91 -

obvi ousl y unsound resul t , and t hat Congr ess must have i nt ended

t hat i mmi gr at i on j udges coul d second guess t he At t orney General

and order such an al i en r el eased. How one r eads Congr ess' s

mani f est unhappi ness wi t h t he pr edi ct i ve f ai l ur e of i mmi gr at i on

j udges as suppor t i ng such a concl usi on puzzl es us. 46

Our col l eagues al so l ean hard on the meani ng they der i ve

f r om sect i on 1226( c) ' s pr edecessors. We agr ee wi t h t he BI A' s

posi t i on i n Roj as t hat , whi l e none of t he ot her pr edecessor

pr ovi si ons shed hel pf ul l i ght on t he i ssue t o be deci ded i n t hi s

case, t he post - 1991, pr e- AEDPA ver si on of t he cust ody and no-

r el ease mandat es i s i nst r uct i ve. Roj as, 23 I & N. Dec. at 123-

24. That ver si on, embodi ed i n sect i on 242( a) ( 2) of t he I NA

f ol l owi ng t he 1990 and 1991 amendment s, 47 pr ovi ded t hat :

46 Our col l eagues poi nt out t hat t her e i s no l egi sl at i vehi st or y suggest i ng t hat Congr ess was mor e host i l e t o t he di scr et i onof i mmi gr at i on j udges i n determi ni ng whether t o gr ant bondedr el ease t o a cr i mi nal al i en t han t o t he di scret i on of i mmi gr at i onenf or cement i n det er mi ni ng whet her t o br i ng a cr i mi nal al i en i nt oi mmi gr at i on cust ody i n t he f i r st pl ace. But t hi s i s i mmat er i al .Gi ven that we appl y Chevr on def erence, i t i s i ncumbent on ourcol l eagues t o demonst r at e t hat i t cl ear l y l ay out si de of Congr ess' si nt ent t o adopt a st at ut or y scheme that woul d not r equi r ei mmi gr at i on enf orcement t o t r ack down and det ai n each and ever ycri mi nal al i en, i ncl udi ng t he l ow- l evel nar cot i cs of f ender , butt hat woul d al l ow i mmi gr at i on enf or cement t o r est assured t hat

ef f or t s t o det ai n t hose cr i mi nal al i ens who do r epr esentenf or cement pr i or i t i es woul d not go f or naught due to themi scal cul at i on of an i mmi gr at i on j udge at t he al i en' s bond hear i ng.

47 I mmi gr at i on Act of 1990, § 504, Pub. L. No. 101- 649, 104St at . 4978, 5049; Mi scel l aneous and Techni cal I mmi gr at i on andNat ur al i zat i on Amendment s of 1991, § 306( a) ( 4) , Pub. L. No. 102-232, 105 St at . 1733, 1751 ( ef f ect i ve as i f i ncl uded i n t he 1990Act ) .



- 92 -

( A) The At t or ney Gener al shal l t ake i nt ocust ody any al i en convi ct ed of an aggr avatedf el ony upon r el ease of t he al i en ( r egar dl essof whet her or not such r el ease i s on par ol e,super vi sed r el ease, or pr obat i on, andr egar dl ess of t he possi bi l i t y of r ear r est orf ur t her conf i nement i n r espect of t he sameof f ense) . Not wi t hst andi ng [ t he equi val ent ofsect i on 1226( a) ] . . . but subj ect t osubpar agr aph ( B) , t he At t or ney Gener al shal lnot r el ease such f el on f r om cust ody.

( B) The At t orney General may not r el ease f r omcust ody any l awf ul l y admi t t ed al i en who hasbeen convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed f el ony, ei t herbef or e or af t er a det er mi nat i on ofdepor t abi l i t y, unl ess t he al i en demonst r at es

t o t he sat i sf act i on of t he At t or ney Gener alt hat such al i en i s not a t hr eat t o t hecommuni t y and t hat t he al i en i s l i kel y t oappear bef ore any schedul ed hear i ngs.

I NA § 242( a) ( 2) ( 1991) ( emphasi s added) .

Under subpar agr aph (B) ( t he equi val ent of

sect i on 1226( c) ( 2) ) , whet her t he al i en i s subj ect t o t hat st at ut e' s

mandat e l i mi t i ng r el ease pr i or t o hi s hear i ng t ur ns ent i r el y on

whet her t he al i en was convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed f el ony, "unl ess"

t he al i en i s abl e t o demonst r at e t hat he i s not a bond r i sk. Ther e

i s not hi ng i n t hat ver si on of t he st at ut e t hat even r emot el y

suggest s t hat a l apse i n est abl i shi ng cust ody removes an al i en

f r om t he scope of subpar agr aph ( B) ' s cover age. And not abl y absent

f r om subpar agr aph ( B) i s any ment i on of subpar agr aph ( A) or i t s

"upon r el ease" l anguage ( i . e. , t he "when . . . r el eased" cl ause' s

equi val ent ) . Thi s i s a pr obl em f or our col l eagues and pet i t i oner s

because, once agai n, t hat t extual r ef er ence poi nt i s t he onl y hook



- 93 -

t hey l at ch on t o i n concl udi ng t hat t he descr i pt i on of al i ens

subj ect t o t he no- r el ease mandat e i ncl udes a t i mi ng el ement .

Si mpl y put , t he l anguage of t he most l ongst andi ng ver si on of t he

no- r el ease mandat e pr i or t o t he I I RI RA does not appear t o cont ai n

any of t he ambi gui t y t hat sect i on 1226( c) ar guabl y possesses wi t h

r espect t o t he r el evance of t he t i mi ng of r el ease. None of t he

l anguage i n t he pr edecessor pr ovi si ons t o whi ch our col l eagues

poi nt cont ai ns t hi s l evel of cl ar i t y on t hi s key poi nt . And i f

our col l eagues' posi t i on t hat Congr ess has never sought t o al t er

t he r el at i onshi p between t he cust ody and no- r el ease mandates i s

cor r ect , t hi s woul d seem t o doom t hei r ar gument .

Our col l eagues poi nt , i nst ead, onl y t o an of f - poi nt BI A

opi ni on, Mat t er of Eden, 20 I . & N. Dec. 209 ( BI A 1990) , as

r ef l ect i ng t he pr e- I I RI RA l aw t hat Congr ess sought t o pr eser ve.

But t he quest i on of whet her a del ay i n det ai ni ng a cr i mi nal al i en

el i mi nat ed t he At t or ney Gener al ' s obl i gat i on t o deny bond once the

al i en was detai ned was not even r ai sed as an i ssue i n Eden. Rather ,

t he case i nvol ved an al i en who had been t aken i nt o i mmi gr at i on

cust ody whi l e on "speci al par ol e" as par t of hi s cr i mi nal sent ence.

The quest i on posed was whet her subj ect i ng such a person t o

mandatory i mmi gr at i on cust ody wi t hout bond was i nconsi st ent wi t h

"Congr ess' deci si on t o al l ow [ an] al i en ser vi ng t i me i n [ a] st at e

or l ocal f aci l i t y t o f i ni sh out t hat t i me bef or e t he Ser vi ce

assumes r esponsi bi l i t y f or hi s i ncar cer at i on. " I d. at 214.



- 94 -

I t i s t r ue t hat , under Roj as' s r easoni ng, t he BI A per haps

coul d have reached t he same resul t i n Eden merel y by sayi ng t hat

once a cr i mi nal al i en was detai ned, he coul d not be gr ant ed bond

r egar dl ess of whet her he had yet been r el eased f r om pr i or cust ody.

Even under t hat approach, t hough, t he BI A woul d have had an

i nt er est i n cl ar i f yi ng t he scope of t he At t or ney Gener al ' s

st at ut or i l y mandat ed dut y t o det ai n a cr i mi nal al i en- - and, namel y,

i n cl ar i f yi ng whet her concei vi ng of a dut y on t he At t or ney Gener al

t o det ai n a per son t oo soon ( i . e. , dur i ng t he cour se of a pr i or

sent ence) r an up agai nst t he congr essi onal i nt ent expr essed

t hr ough t he 1988 l egi sl at i on' s "upon r el ease" pr ovi si on. I n any

event , t he si mpl er poi nt i s t hat t her e i s no hol di ng i n Eden,

ei t her expr ess or i mpl i ed, t hat addr esses t he i ssue posed her e. 48

Compoundi ng t hei r at t empt t o gl ean a hol di ng- - much l ess

set t l ed l aw- - f r om Eden, our col l eagues t hen si mpl y mi sr ead t he

House repor t t o t he 1990 l egi sl at i on t hat r evi sed t he cl ause "upon

compl et i on of t he al i en' s cr i mi nal sent ence" t o r ead "upon r el ease

of t he al i en ( r egar dl ess of whet her or not r el ease i s on par ol e,

super vi sed r el ease, or pr obat i on . . . . ) . " Ri ght l y or wr ongl y,

t he r epor t pl ai nl y st at es t hat Congr ess was concer ned t hat " [ a] t

l east one i mmi gr at i on j udge has r ul ed t hat an aggr avated f el on who

has been par ol ed by t he sent enci ng cour t cont i nues t o ser ve hi s

48 Not even t he di ssent i n Roj as ci t es Mat t er of Eden.



- 95 -

' sent ence' [ and t her ef or e] I NS has no aut hor i t y t o i ncar cer at e

t hi s al i en unt i l hi s per i od of par ol e has ended. " H. R. Rep. No.

101- 681, pt . 1, at 148 ( 1990) , as r epr i nt ed i n 1990 U. S. C. C. A. N.

6472, 6554 ( emphasi s added) . I n shor t , Congr ess was f ear f ul t hat

i t s mandat e to take cr i mi nal al i ens i nt o cust ody wi t hout bond upon

compl et i on of t he sent ence was bei ng const r ued as di vest i ng I NS of

any aut hor i t y to det ai n an al i en whi l e t he al i en was on par ol e.

Rest or i ng t hat aut hor i t y i mpl i ed a " l i nk" t o t he no- r el ease mandat e

onl y i n t he obvi ous sense that any el i mi nat i on of I NS' s aut hor i t y

even t o t ake a person i nt o cust ody obvi ousl y f r ust r ates any mandate

t hat t he per son be kept i n cust ody. Not hi ng i n t hi s sor t of

l ogi cal l i nk i n any way i mpl i es ( much l ess compel s) a concl usi on

t hat t he cust ody and t he no- r el ease mandat es ar e "l i nked" i n t he

sense t hat our col l eagues' anal ysi s r equi r es. To t he cont r ar y,

t he f act t hat Congr ess want ed even t hose cr i mi nal al i ens who woul d

ot her wi se be subj ect t o par ol e repor t i ng and super vi si on t o be

det ai ned dur i ng t hei r r emoval pr oceedi ngs woul d seemt o cut agai nst

our col l eagues' assumpt i on t hat a br i ef per i od of unsuper vi sed

l i vi ng i n the communi t y el i mi nat ed t he need f or det ent i on.

Thi s t ype of er r or ( presumi ng t hat any r ef er ence t o

" i mmedi at e" det ent i on wi t hout bond i mpl i es t hat a del ay i n

det ent i on makes a bond possi bl e) per vades our col l eagues' ent i r e

di scussi on of t he l egi sl at i ve r ecor d. When we see Congr ess

r epeat edl y emphasi zi ng t hat t he government must t ake cr i mi nal



- 96 -

al i ens i nt o cust ody "when, " "upon, " or " i mmedi at el y upon" t hei r

r el ease, and then not r el ease t hem, we see no i mpl i ed l oophol e.

Rat her , we see an i ncr easi ngl y ur gent expect at i on t hat cr i mi nal

al i ens shoul d be f ound i n cust ody when the removal deci si on i ssues.

We st r ess, t oo, t hat even i f one wer e t o i gnor e t hese

def ect s i n our col l eagues' sur vey of t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, t he

most one ends up wi t h ar e ef f or t s t o i nf er an answer t o t he quest i on

at hand f r om st atement s made i n addr essi ng other i ssues where t he

r esol ut i on of t hose ot her i ssues di d not r equi r e or even cal l upon

a degr ee of pr eci si on t hat woul d be necessary t o conf i r m t he f or ce

of t he i nf er ence. And i n each i nst ance, t he act ual r esol ut i on of

t he i ssue at hand i s compl et el y compat i bl e wi t h t he BI A' s

concl usi on i n Roj as. I nf er ences of t hi s t ype, whet her r easonabl e

or not , seem t o us to f al l f ar shor t of t he "c l ear " l egi s l at i ve

r ecor d one shoul d r equi r e t o end t he i nqui r y at Chevron st ep one.

Turni ng t hei r f ocus f r om t he 1991 amendment and i t s

pr edecessor s, our col l eagues r epeat t hei r er r or i n cl ai mi ng t hat

we shoul d pr esume t hat , i n enact i ng t he I I RI RA, Congr ess was aware

of t he f act t hat "di st r i ct cour t s . . . t r eat ed t he r et ai ned ' upon

r el ease' cl ause [ of AEDPA] as i f i t condi t i oned t he r et ai ned ' such

f el on cl ause. ' " Supr a at 38- 39. Our col l eagues ci t e f i ve di st r i ct

cour t cases as const i t ut i ng t hi s " exi st i ng l aw" of whi ch Congr ess

was supposedl y awar e. Thr ee ar e act ual l y hol di ngs t hat addr ess

r et r oact i vi t y under AEDPA. Mont er o v. Cobb, 937 F. Supp. 88 ( D.



- 97 -

Mass. 1996) ; Vi l l agomez v. Smi t h, No. C96- 1141C, 1996 WL 622451

( W. D. Wa. J ul y 31, 1996) ( unpubl i shed) ; DeMel o v. Cobb, 936 F.

Supp. 30 (D. Mass. 1996) , vacat ed, 108 F. 3d 328 ( 1st Ci r . 1997)

( per cur i am) . As f or t he f our t h, we si ncer el y doubt t hat Congr ess

managed t o dr edge up an obscur e unpubl i shed opi ni on f r om t he

Sout her n Di st r i ct of Texas, whi ch t o t hi s day remai ns di f f i cul t t o

l ocat e. See I n r e Reyes, Case No. B- 94- 80 ( S. D. Tex. May 31,

1996) . The f i f t h, Gr odzki v. Reno, 950 F. Supp. 339 ( N. D. Ga.

1996) , i s arguabl y on poi nt , but was not i ssued unt i l Sept ember 20,

1996, j ust t en days bef ore t he al r eady dr af t ed I I RI RA was passed

i nt o l aw. See Pub. L. No. 104- 208, 110 St at . 3009. I n any event ,

even wer e al l f i ve cases squar el y apposi t e, f i ve di st r i ct cour t

opi ni ons coul d not est abl i sh t he t ype of "set t l ed j udi ci al

const r uct i on" as t o whi ch we pr esume congr essi onal awareness. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Powel l , 379 U. S. 48, 55 n. 13 ( 1964) ( f our l ower

cour t opi ni ons, i ncl udi ng t wo by ci r cui t cour t s, i nsuf f i ci ent ) .

I n sum, agai nst a l egi sl at i ve backdr op t hi ck wi t h

i ndi cat i ons t hat Congr ess ai med t o ensur e t hat cr i mi nal al i ens not

go f r ee pr i or t o t he concl usi on of t hei r r emoval pr oceedi ngs, our

col l eagues st ake t hei r r eadi ng of t he stat ut e on one of f - poi nt BI A

r ul i ng, one di st r i ct cour t deci si on i ssued t en days pr i or t o t he

I I RI RA' s enact ment , and t he supposedl y anomal ous r esul t s der i ved

f r om r eadi ng sect i on 1226( c) i n conj unct i on wi t h what our

col l eagues t hemsel ves descr i be as "an anci l l ar y and pot ent i al l y



- 98 -

never oper at i ve cl ause i n t he TPCR, " supr a at 30- 31 n. 23. I n vi ew

of t he f or egoi ng, one mi ght ar gue that sect i on 1226( c) ' s

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y act ual l y compel s a f i ndi ng t hat t he

st r ai ght f or war d, gr ammat i cal l y convent i onal r eadi ng of t he st at ut e

must be corr ect . I nst ead, t emper i ng our conf i dence i n our own

i nt er pr et at i ve anal ysi s, we need opi ne at t hi s poi nt onl y t hat t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y i s not so cl ear l y t o t he cont r ar y as t o compel

a f i ndi ng t hat "Congr ess has di r ect l y spoken t o t he pr eci se

quest i on at i ssue" ( much l ess t hat i t spoke wi t h t he i nt ent our

col l eagues cl ai m i s cl ear l y appar ent ) . Chevr on, 467 U. S. at 842.

C. Our Colleagues' Conclusion Falls Short of the Mark

We have expl ai ned our di sagr eement wi t h our col l eagues'

argument t hat no r easonabl e j ur i st can r ead t he phr ase "as

descr i bed i n par agr aph 1" as not i ncor por at i ng i nt o par agr aph 2

t he phr ase "when r el eased . . . . " Even i f we ar e wr ong, t hough,

we agr ee wi t h t he Second, Thi r d, Four t h, and Tent h Ci r cui t s t hat

t he At t or ney Gener al ' s del ay i n det ai ni ng pet i t i oner s does not

r ender t he no- r el ease mandat e i nappl i cabl e. Our si st er ci r cui t s

have expl ai ned why t hi s i s so under t he l oss- of - aut hor i t y r ubr i c.

See Lora, 2015 WL 6499951, at *8; Ol mos, 780 F. 3d at 1324–26;

Syl vai n, 714 F. 3d at 157–61; Hosh, 680 F. 3d at 381–83. We pr ef er

t o r ef r ame t he poi nt as a mat t er of i nt er pr et i ng t he t ext

consi st ent l y wi t h t he pur pose mani f est i n t he t ext . The key poi nt

her e i s t hat even i f t he no- r el ease mandat e of par agr aph ( c) ( 2)



- 99 -

appl i ed by i t s t erms onl y t o persons who have been r el eased f r om

cr i mi nal cust ody, t her e i s no good r eason t o say al so t hat i t

appl i es onl y when t he At t orney General compl i es wi t h t he cust ody

mandat e by det ai ni ng the cr i mi nal al i ens r i ght when they ar e

r el eased.

Consi der t he f ol l owi ng exampl e that we have cr af t ed so

t hat i t s subst ance and evi dent pur pose i nvi t e the t ype of r eadi ng

t hat our col l eagues i nsi st i s appl i cabl e t o sect i on 1226( c) .

( 1) Pl ease gi ve an especi al l y t hor ough wat er i ng t o any

pl ant t hat i s :( A) a sunf l ower , or( B) a hi bi scus

when i t i s pl ant ed f or t he gar den show.( 2) Do not l et a pl ant descr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) go

any day wi t hout wat er unl ess you ar e cer t ai n t hati t i s dead.

Under t he scenar i o posed by t hi s exampl e, we woul d agr ee

t hat i t i s r easonabl e t o r ead t he r ef er ence t o pl ant s " descr i bed

i n par agr aph ( 1) " as i ndi cat i ng not al l sunf l ower or hi bi scus

pl ant s, but r at her as i ndi cat i ng sunf l ower or hi bi scus pl ant s t hat

are newl y pl ant ed f or t he garden show. Thi s i s because our

knowl edge that cer t ai n new pl ant i ngs need pr ompt and r egul ar

wat er i ng gi ves us a cl ue f or r esol vi ng any ambi gui t y cr eat ed by

t he st r uct ur e and awkward synt ax of t he mandat es.

Never t hel ess, even i n t hi s exampl e desi gned t o wel come

t he t ype of r eadi ng t hat our col l eagues gi ve t o sect i on 1226( c) ,

i t si mpl y does not f ol l ow t hat t he mandat e of sect i on ( 2) i s al so



- 100 -

cont i ngent upon pr ompt compl i ance wi t h t he mandate of sect i on ( 1) .

No r easonabl e per son woul d l et t he pl ant s i n quest i on cont i nue t o

go wi t hout wat er merel y because i mpedi ment or negl ect undul y

post poned t he f i r st wat er i ng.

Of cour se, t hi s concl usi on, t oo, f ol l ows i n gr eat par t

f r om an assumpt i on t hat t he pr i nci pal pur pose of t he mandat es i s

t o keep t he new pl ant s al i ve. I n t he case of sect i on 1226( c) , an

anal ogous ( and act ual ) pur pose i s mani f est i n t he l egi sl at i ve

hi st or y di scussed i n t hi s opi ni on and i n Demor e. I n r epeat edl y

and even mor e br oadl y expr essi ng di ssat i sf act i on wi t h cr i mi nal

al i ens not bei ng i n cust ody when r emoval i s ordered, Congr ess di d

not or der t he At t or ney Gener al t o det ai n such al i ens onl y i f she

chose t o do so r i ght away. Rather , we r ead sect i on 1226( c) as

or der i ng t he At t or ney Gener al t o det ai n such per sons, and t o do i t

r i ght away. The quest i on whether t he At t orney General compl i ed

wi t h t hat mandat e r i ght away- - l i ke t he quest i on whet her t he pl ant s

were wat ered prompt l y when pl ant ed- - i s s i mpl y an exogenous and

i ndependent f act t hat i s not par t of t he descr i pt i on of t hose t o

whom ei t her mandate appl i es. 49

49 Our col l eagues suggest t hat our di st i nct i on bet weenexogenous and endogenous char act er i st i cs cut s t oo f i ne. We wi l lsi mpl i f y. Sect i on 1226( c) ( 1) , under any r eadi ng, bot h cr eat es adut y and descr i bes a gr oup of peopl e as t o whom t hat dut y must becar r i ed out . We see how sect i on 1226( c) ( 2) ' s r ef erence t o a per son"descr i bed i n" sect i on 1226( c) ( 1) coul d r easonabl y be under st oodt o ref er t o a member of t he del i neat ed gr oup as t o whom t he dut y



- 101 -

D. The Constitutional Avoidance Canon

Si nce our col l eagues r est t hei r deci si on on Chevron' s

f i r st st ep, t hey do not r each t he const i t ut i onal avoi dance ar gument

pr i nci pal l y r el i ed upon by pet i t i oner s and by the panel opi ni on we

vacat ed pr i or t o hear i ng t hi s appeal en banc. See War ger v.

Shauer s, 135 S. Ct . 521, 529 ( 2014) ( const i t ut i onal avoi dance canon

"has no appl i cat i on i n t he absence of . . . ambi gui t y" ( omi ssi on

i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Ol mos, 780 F. 3d

at 1321 ( ci t i ng War ger i n decl i ni ng t o consi der t he canon f or

pur poses of Chevr on st ep one) . Because we di sagr ee wi t h our

col l eagues' concl usi on t hat no reasonabl e per son can r ead t he

st at ut e ot her t han as t hey read i t , we expl ai n why t he

const i t ut i onal avoi dance canon, even i f i t may be appr opr i at el y

appl i ed at Chevr on st ep t wo, 50 does not r emove the BI A' s deci si on

exi st s. But we si mpl y f ai l t o see how a r easonabl e r eaderconst r ues t he cr oss- r ef er ence as r ef er r i ng t o a member of t hedel i neat ed gr oup as t o whom t he dut y was i n f act i mmedi at el yexecut ed. Sect i on 1226( c) ( 1) , whi ch cr eat es a f or war d- f aci ngdut y, i s of cour se power l ess t o "descr i be" t he cl ass of peopl e ast o whom t hat dut y wi l l i n f act be car r i ed out .

50 An en banc panel of t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t det er mi ned that t heconst i t ut i onal avoi dance canon "pl ays no rol e i n t he second Chevroni nqui r y. " Mor al es- I zqui er do v. Gonzal es, 486 F. 3d 484, 493 ( 9t hCi r . 2007) ( en banc) . The Tent h Ci r cui t i n Ol mos ci t ed t hat

opi ni on appr ovi ngl y, Ol mos, 780 F. 3d at 1323 & n. 2, but al soappear ed t o r ej ect t he mer i t s of pet i t i oner ' s const i t ut i onalavoi dance ar gument i n i t s st ep t wo anal ysi s, i d. at 1324. As t heD. C. Ci r cui t has noted ( i n a case al so ci t ed i n Ol mos) , t he Supr emeCour t has at l east once i ndi cat ed t hat t he "canon of const i t ut i onalavoi dance t r umps Chevron def er ence. " Nat ' l Mi ni ng Ass' n v.Kempt hor ne, 512 F. 3d 702, 711 ( D. C. Ci r . 2008) ( ci t i ng Edwar d J .



- 102 -

i n Roj as f r om t he r ange of per mi ssi bl e i nt er pr et at i ons r equi r i ng

def erence. 51

Pet i t i oner s' basi c cl ai m i n f avor of appl yi ng t he canon

i s t hat a st at ut or y command t o det ai n al i ens such as pet i t i oner s

who had peacef ul l y resi ded i n t he communi t y f or year s af t er t hei r

r el ease f r om cri mi nal cust ody woul d r ai se ser i ous const i t ut i onal

due pr ocess concer ns. I n accept i ng t hi s cl ai m, t he panel opi ni on

r el i ed on what seems t o us t o be a doubl y f l awed r eadi ng of J ust i ce

Kennedy' s concur r i ng opi ni on i n Demore.

Fi r st , t he panel vi ewed J ust i ce Kennedy' s concur r ence as

l i mi t i ng t he Demor e maj or i t y' s r at i onal e f or uphol di ng sect i on

1226( c) . See Cast añeda, 769 F. 3d at 39 & n. 4. The panel appear ed

t o be ( er r oneousl y) appl yi ng the Supr eme Cour t ' s Mar ks pr i nci pl e,

whi ch i nst r uct s t hat " [ w] hen a f r agment ed Cour t deci des a case and

no si ngl e r at i onal e expl ai ni ng t he r esul t enj oys t he assent of

f i ve J ust i ces, t he hol di ng of t he Cour t may be vi ewed as t hat

posi t i on t aken by t hose Member s who concur r ed i n the j udgment s on

DeBar t ol o Cor p. v. Fl a. Gul f Coast Bl dg. & Const r . Tr ades Counci l ,485 U. S. 568, 575 ( 1988) ) . Si nce we see no basi s f or t he canon' sappl i cat i on r egar dl ess, we decl i ne t o t ake any posi t i on on t hecanon' s preci se rel evance t o t he Chevron anal ysi s.

51 The Thi r d and Four t h Ci r cui t s di d not addr ess t heconst i t ut i onal avoi dance ar gument t hat pet i t i oner s pr ess her e.See Syl vai n, 714 F. 3d 150; Hosh, 680 F. 3d 375. The Second and Tenth Ci r cui t s r ej ect ed i t , see Lor a, 2015 WL 6499951, at *9 n. 20;Ol mos, 780 F. 3d at 1322–24, but t he Tent h Ci r cui t noted i n af oot not e t hat "[ c] onst i t ut i onal consi der at i ons coul d becomegr eat er when t he gap i n cust ody i s consi der abl y l onger t han si xdays. " Ol mos, 780 F. 3d at 1324 n. 5.



- 103 -

t he nar r owest gr ounds. " Mar ks v. Uni t ed St at es, 430 U. S. 188, 193

( 1977) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . But J ust i ce Kennedy' s

concur r ence i n Demor e expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat he j oi ned t he

maj or i t y' s "car ef ul opi ni on . . . i n f ul l , " Demor e, 538 U. S. at

533 ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng) , so not hi ng t her ei n l i mi t s t he

maj or i t y' s r at i onal e f or uphol di ng sect i on 1226( c) .

Nor does J ust i ce Kennedy' s concur r ence pr ovi de

per suasi ve aut hor i t y i n f avor of pet i t i oner s' due pr ocess

ar gument . That concur r ence expr essed no r eservat i on at al l ,

const i t ut i onal or ot her wi se, about t he amount of t i me t hat passed

bet ween t he moment an al i en became r el eased and t he moment of t he

al i en' s det ent i on. Rat her , J ust i ce Kennedy wr ot e separ at el y t o

address a concer n ( whi ch we shar e) about t he amount of t i me an

al i en spends i n i mmi gr at i on det ent i on whi l e he wai t s f or hi s

r emoval pr oceedi ng. See i d. at 532 ( " [ S] i nce t he Due Process

Cl ause pr ohi bi t s ar bi t r ar y depr i vat i ons of l i ber t y, a l awf ul

per manent r esi dent al i en such as r espondent coul d be ent i t l ed t o

an i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on as t o hi s r i sk of f l i ght and

dangerousness i f t he cont i nued det ent i on became unreasonabl e or

unj ust i f i ed. " ( emphasi s added) ) . The concur r ence' s t hr ee

ci t at i ons t o Zadvydas v. Davi s, 533 U. S. 678 ( 2001) , a case deal i ng

t he const i t ut i onal l i mi t s upon t he dur at i on of post - r emoval - per i od

det ent i on ( and the onl y cour t case ci t ed by t he concur r ence) ,

suppor t t hat l i mi t ed r eadi ng.



- 104 -

To be sure, t he Demor e maj or i t y addr essed onl y t he

gener al appl i cat i on of sect i on 1226( c) t o an al i en who had

commi t t ed an ( A) - ( D) of f ense, wi t hout consi der i ng t he pr eci se

const i t ut i onal consi der at i on- - t he l engt h of t i me an al i en managed

t o avoi d det ent i on post - r el ease- - t hat pet i t i oner s now cl ai m

r equi r es a r esol ut i on i n t hei r f avor . 52 But f or t he f ol l owi ng

r easons, we vi ew t hi s as a di st i nct i on wi t hout a di f f er ence wi t h

r espect t o whet her t he del ay i n commenci ng det ent i on exper i enced

by pet i t i oner s rai ses const i t ut i onal concer ns.

Pet i t i oner s' ar gument r est s on t he pr emi se t hat , once a

l aw- br eaki ng al i en has been out of cust ody f or sever al year s, one

can no l onger r egar d hi m as pr esent i ng a suf f i ci ent l y hei ght ened

r i sk of danger or f l i ght , even once t he al i en f i nds out I CE now

want s t o depor t hi m on gr ounds t hat wi l l be har d t o successf ul l y

cont est . Nei t her pet i t i oner s nor t he vacat ed panel opi ni on ci t e

any cont r ol l i ng aut hor i t y f or t hi s pr oposi t i on, and we have gr eat

di f f i cul t y accept i ng t hi s vi ew of f l i ght r i sk as a mat t er of common

sense. See Ol mos, 780 F. 3d at 1323 ( " [ W] e do not abandon Chevr on

def er ence at t he mer e ment i on of a possi bl e const i t ut i onal

pr obl em. " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Kempt hor ne, 512 F. 3d

at 711) ) . I t seems t o us t hat Congr ess coul d have- - and di d- -

52 Per haps si nce he was detai ned t he day af t er hi s r el ease,

Ki m v. Zi gl ar , 276 F. 3d 523, 526 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) , t he pet i t i oneri n Demore made no ar gument about t he t i mi ng of hi s r el ease.



- 105 -

r easonabl y r egar d t hi s gr oup of al i ens as cat egor i cal l y posi ng a

f l i ght r i sk because t hei r commi ssi on of t he desi gnat ed cr i mes makes

i t hi ghl y l i kel y t hat t hey wi l l be depor t ed i f I CE comes knocki ng.

Hence, t her e i s l i t t l e t o l ose by t r yi ng t o hi de, especi al l y once

a r emoval or der i ssues. See S. Rep. No. 104- 48, at 2- 3

( "Undet ai ned cr i mi nal al i ens wi t h depor t at i on or der s of t en abscond

upon r ecei vi ng a f i nal not i f i cat i on [ of r emoval ] . . . . Too of t en,

as one f r ust r at ed I NS of f i ci al t ol d t he Subcommi t t ee st af f , onl y

t he st upi d and honest get depor t ed. " ) . The i ncent i ve t o f l ee peaks

once t he cr i mi nal al i en knows t hat I CE has deci ded t o come af t er

hi m. And whi l e t he i ncent i ve may be depr essed whi l e I CE i gnores

t he al i en, once I CE mani f est s an i nt ent i on t o pr oceed f or t hwi t h,

t he i ncent i ve t o f l ee bef or e t he depor t at i on pr oceedi ng ends woul d

seem t o be unr el at ed t o any del ay i n maki ng t hat mani f est at i on. 53

The vi ew of pet i t i oners and of t he vacat ed panel opi ni on

on t hi s poi nt i s ef f ect i vel y t hat , i f t her e i s an i ndi vi dual f act

showi ng a per son poses a l esser r i sk of f l i ght or danger ( e. g. ,

has been l i vi ng i n a communi t y f or year s) , t hen t hat per son i s

53 I magi ne Al i ens A and B i n a detent i on cent er , each havi ng

commi t t ed t he same sect i on 1226( c) of f ense, and each si mi l ar i nal l ways, except I CE det ai ned Al i en A one day af t er r el ease f r omst at e cust ody, and Al i en B f our year s af t er r el ease. Now i magi net hat each was suddenl y r el eased pendi ng compl et i on of hi s r emovalhear i ng. We can see no r eason why we can say t hat , as a mat t er ofconst i t ut i onal l aw, Congr ess coul d not have r easonabl y vi ewed Aand B as posi ng si mi l ar f l i ght r i sks dur i ng t he per i od bet weenr el ease and r emoval hear i ng.



- 106 -

const i t ut i onal l y ent i t l ed t o a bai l hear i ng. See Cast añeda, 769

F. 3d at 47- 48 ( "Mandat or y det ent i on of i ndi vi dual s such as t he

pet i t i oner s appear s ar bi t r ar y on i t s f ace. ") . Thi s vi ew

f undament al l y pushes back on Congr ess' s abi l i t y ( af f i r med i n

Demor e) t o say cat egor i cal l y t hat cr i mi nal al i ens shoul d not have

t he abi l i t y t o f l ee whi l e awai t i ng t he r easonabl y pr ompt concl usi on

of t hei r depor t at i on hear i ngs. 54 We woul d t her ef or e r ej ect i t .

We not e, f i nal l y, t hat pet i t i oner s have r ai sed no

argument based on t he dur at i on of t hei r detent i on, nor have t hey

pr oduced evi dence t hat t he BI A' s i nt er pr et at i on of sect i on 1226( c)

wi l l subj ect t hem t o syst emi c del ays or ot her wi se pr ol ong t he

l engt h of t hei r det ent i on pr i or t o a hear i ng. Cf . Demor e, 538

U. S. at 532 ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng) . As of t he t i me t hat t he

Supr eme Cour t l ast consi der ed t he st at ut e, " i n 85% of t he cases i n

whi ch al i ens [ wer e] det ai ned pur suant t o § 1226( c) , r emoval

pr oceedi ngs [ were] compl et ed i n an aver age t i me of 47 days and a

medi an of 30 days. " Demore, 538 U. S. at 529. To t he ext ent t hat

t he At t orney General woul d at t empt t o use sect i on 1226( c) t o detai n

54 Many st atut es and cases i n t he cr i mi nal sent enci ng area

gi ve equal wei ght t o pr i or cri mi nal convi ct i ons i r r espect i ve ofwhet her t he i ndi vi dual was r ecent l y r el eased f r om cust ody. Aper son qual i f i es, f or exampl e, f or mandat or y l i f e i mpr i sonment asa "vi ol ent f el on" whet her hi s pr edi cat e convi ct i ons occur r ed l astyear or si x year s ago. See 18 U. S. C. § 3559( c) ( 1) . Accor di ngl y,we cannot say t hat Congr ess coul d not r egard the danger r i sk asmat er i al l y r educed merel y because t he al i en has spent some t i meout of cust ody.



persons f or mater i al l y more ext ended dur at i ons, see Lora, 2015 WL

6499951, at *12, we of f er i n t hi s opi ni on no bl essi ng of such

det ent i ons. Rat her , we opi ne onl y t hat t he const i t ut i onal

argument s r ai sed by pet i t i oners her e do not make i mpermi ssi bl e t he

BI A' s i nt er pr et at i on of secti on 1226( c), ei t her f aci al l y or as

appl i ed t o pet i t i oner s.

II. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng reasons, we woul d hol d that

pet i t i oner s have t he char act er i st i cs of "an al i en descri bed i n"

sect i on 1226( c) ( 1) , and t hat t he At t or ney Gener al i s cor r ect i n

concl udi ng t hat she ther ef or e l acks t he di scret i on t o gr ant t hem

a bond hear i ng. 55

Gordon v. Lynch, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of Gordon v. Lynch, 1st Cir. (2015)