BECAUSE MR. KARGBO HAS A SUBSTANTIAL CHALLENGE TO REMOVABILITY, HIS MANDATORY DETENTION VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE Placing a lawful permanent resident like Mr. Kargbo in mandatory detention violates his due process rights because, unlike the detained noncitizen in who Demore conceded removability, Mr. Kargbo has substantial challenges to all alleged grounds of removability. 538 U.S. at 513-14; Hittler Decl. Exs. G at 4, EE (discussing challenges See to both grounds of removability). In Justices expressed concern that detaining Demore, noncitizens with substantial claims against removability violates due process. See 538 U.S. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring); at 577 (Breyer, J., concurring in Demore, id. part and dissenting in part); at 561 (Souter, J., dissenting) (“Some individual aliens id. covered by § 1226(c) have meritorious challenges to removability or claims for relief from removal. . . . As to such aliens, as with . . . the Government has only a Zadvydas weak reason the immigration laws for detaining them.”). Several federal courts agree that a detainee who has a good-faith challenge “when to his deportability is mandatorily detained under § 1226(c),” his due process rights can be violated. 355 F.3d 1010, 1019-21 (7th Cir. 2004); Gonzalez v. O’Connell, see also 804 F.3d at 616 (noting, in a decision affirming a district court grant of habeas Lora, relief after prolonged detention under § 1226(c), that the petitioner was excellent “an candidate for cancellation of removal” and therefore he was a good candidate for bond); No. 1:12-cv-00892, 2012 WL 1570778, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May Papazoglou v. Napolitano, 3, 2012) (holding that a noncitizen’s due process rights were violated when he was detained despite the fact that he ha[d] demonstrated substantial likelihood “mandatorily
BECAUSE MR. KARGBO HAS A SUBSTANTIAL CHALLENGE TO REMOVABILITY, HIS MANDATORY DETENTION VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE Placing a lawful permanent resident like Mr. Kargbo in mandatory detention violates his due process rights because, unlike the detained noncitizen in Demore who conceded removability, Mr. Kargbo has substantial challenges to all alleged grounds of removability. See 538 U.S. at 513-14; Hittler Decl. Exs. G at 4, EE (discussing challenges to both grounds of removability). In Demore, Justices expressed concern that detaining noncitizens with substantial claims against removability violates due process. See Demore, 538 U.S. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring); id. at 577 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 561 (Souter, J., dissenting) (“Some individual aliens covered by § 1226(c) have meritorious challenges to removability or claims for relief from removal. . . . As to such aliens, as with Zadvydas . . . the Government has only a weak reason the immigration laws for detaining them.”). Several federal courts agree that “when a detainee who has a good-faith challenge to his deportability is mandatorily detained under § 1226(c),” his due process rights can be violated. Gonzalez v. O’Connell, 355 F.3d 1010, 1019-21 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Lora, 804 F.3d at 616 (noting, in a decision affirming a district court grant of habeas relief after prolonged detention under § 1226(c), that the petitioner was “an excellent candidate for cancellation of removal” and therefore he was a good candidate for bond); Papazoglou v. Napolitano, No. 1:12-cv-00892, 2012 WL 1570778, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2012) (holding that a noncitizen’s due process rights were violated when he was “mandatorily detained despite the fact that he ha[d] demonstrated substantial likelihood
template-for-prolonged-detention-habeas-petition.docx