Young v. Aviles
Albert Young has been detained by the Department of Homeland Security for more than eleven (11) months. For many years there were three (3) immigration judges presiding over immigration proceedings at 201 Varick Street. In May of 2015, the Honorable Alan Page retired after serving before the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) for thirty-nine (39) years. Mr. Young’s case is particularly sad because his case was set for an individual hearing (trial) before what was supposed to be the “new Immigration Judge.” Despite the fact that a trial date was set for a new immigration judge, one was never appointed.
As a result, Mr. Young’s case was transferred to Immigration Judge Videla, who set the case down for an individual hearing five (5) months later. Now, the two (2) remaining judges are required to take on all of Judge Page’s unfinished cases and all new cases. The DHS believes that Mr. Young should be in jail for the additional five (5) month delay caused by Judge Page’s retirement and the subsequent refusal to appoint a new judge. However, Federal Court Judge Jesse Furman disagreed.
The Grotas Firm filed two (2) petitions for writ of habeas corpus. The first writ was denied by Judge Furman, who ruled that Mr. Young’s detention was not yet unconstitutional. Nevertheless, in his decision he said, “it was a close call.” After Judge Page’s retirement, and the additional five (5) month delay, Paul Grotas filed another writ of habeas corpus which resulted in a finding that his detention has become “unreasonably prolonged” and that he is entitled to a bond hearing.
The Court in Young said,
“…although some of the delay is attributable to Young’s own requests for adjournments (see Flanagan Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, 10; Respt.’s Mem. Law Opp’n Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 10) 6-7), responsibility for the most substantial part of the delay — from June to November — lies with the Government, as the hearing was adjourned as a result of the retirement of the immigration judge handling Young’s case. (Flanagan Decl. ¶¶ 18-19). In light of those developments since Young I, the Court concludes that Young’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged, and that he is entitled to a bond hearing as a matter of due process.”
Id. at 4.
Mr. Young has resided in the United States for a long period of time as a lawful permanent resident, and has numerous family members in the area. It is inconceivable that there is no amount of bond which would secure his return to court.