U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office of the Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Fnl/s Church. Virginia 20530

Abraham, Emily A. Social Justice Collaborative 420 3rd Street Oakland, CA 94607

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SFR P.O. Box 26449 San Francisco, CA 94126-6449

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: QUEZADA-GONZALEZ, DAVID A...

A 099-539-214

Date of this notice: 4/4/2014

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,

DOY!JtL ctVVU
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members: Miller, Neil P.

Trane Userteam: Docket

Cite as: David Antonio Quezada-Gonzalez, A099 539 214 (BIA Apr. 4, 2014)

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls :hurch, Virginia 20530

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

File:

A099 539 214 - San Francisco, CA

Date:

APR -4 2014

In re: DAVID ANTONIO QUEZADA-GONZALEZ a.k.a. David Antonio Perez a.k.a. David Antonio Gutierrez-Perez IN BOND PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Emily A. Abraham, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

APPLJCATION: Redetermination of custody status

The respondent appeals from the Immigration Judge's November 8, 2013, order denying his request for a change in custody status. A bond memorandum dated December 18, 2013, sets forth the basis for the Immigration Judge's order. We review findings of fact by the Immigration Judge for clear error, while all other issues, including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, are reviewed de novo. remanded for further proceedings. In September 2012, the United States District Court for the Central District of California Western Division, issued an Order and Preliminary Injunction in Rodriguez v. Robbins, No. 2:07-CV-03239 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2012), aff'd, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013), requiring the government to identify all class members detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1225(b) and to provide each of them with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with power to grant their release. The class consists of: all non-citizens within the Central District of California who: (1) are or were detained for longer than six months pursuant to one of the general immigration detention statutes pending completion of removal proceedings, including judicial review, (2) are not and have not been detained pursuant to a national security detention statute, and (3) have not been afforded a hearing to determine whether their detention is justified. Subsequently, in August 2013, the United States District Court for the Central District of California Western Division issued an Order and Permanent Injunction clarifying that detainees incarcerated for re[in]statement under 8 U.S.C. 123l(a)(5), detainees held for proceedings initiated by an administrative removal order under 8 U.S.C. 1228(b)(expedited removal), and detainees held under the general immigration statute after entering the United States through the Visa Waiver Program are also members of the previously certified class of individuals entitled to a bond hearing. Aug. 6, 2013), 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i)-(ii). The record will be

See Rodriguez appeal docketed,

v.

Holder,

No. 2:07-CV-03239, 2013 WL 5229795 (C.D. Cal.

No. 13-56706 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2013). The court indicated that

members of all four subclasses - those detained under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231, should be afforded bond hearings after 6 months of detention, consistent with

Rodriguez v. Robbins, supra.

The administrative record supports the respondent's assertion that he has been detained in excess of 6 months. While the Immigration Judge concluded that the previously discussed custody provisions are inapplicable to the respondent because he is detained outside of

Cite as: David Antonio Quezada-Gonzalez, A099 539 214 (BIA Apr. 4, 2014)

A099 539 214

the Central District of California, we conclude that the Immigration Judge has jurisdiction to consider the respondent's request for a change in custody status pursuant to the decisions in

Rodriguez

v.

Robbins, supra,

and

Rodriguez

v.

Holder, supra.

We will therefore remand the

record for further bond proceedings. Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

.____ -P (

FOR THE BOARD

_ _ _

Cite as: David Antonio Quezada-Gonzalez, A099 539 214 (BIA Apr. 4, 2014)