Santillon Quiroz v. Mullin, et al.

The ACLU of Colorado has joined an appeal with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Oklahoma, and immigration lawyer Kelli Stump challenging the denial of a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of a noncitizen wrongfully detained in Oklahoma.

Mr. Santillon-Quiroz was arrested by ICE and held without bond in a county jail in Oklahoma, similarly to another ACLU of Colorado client, Mr. Mendoza-Gutierrez (Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, et al.). Mr. Santillon-Quiroz was denied a bond hearing by an immigration judge based on the government’s new interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which DHS, DOJ, and ICE now claim means he is “seeking admission” to the U.S. and that he is subject to mandatory detention for the duration of his immigration case. This is a change from 30 years of previous practice across five presidential administraitons (including the first Trump term) where people arrested for immigration violations in the interior could seek release from detention on bond. However, unlike in Mr. Mendoza-Gutierrez’s case (and in the vast majority of all cases around the country), the district court judge in Oklahoma denied Mr. Santillon-Quiroz’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, once again denying him a bond hearing. Because of this decision, he has no chance at release from detention prior to the conclusion of his immigration case, which can take months, if not years, and is locked up in a jail in Oklahoma.

The ACLU of Colorado, ACLU of Oklahoma, and the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, with help from American Immigration Lawyers Association past-president Kelli Stumps, filed the opening brief in the 10th Circuit appealing the denial. The brief argued that this newly adopted, unlawful interpretation of the statute is contrary to the plain language of the statutory detention/bond scheme laid out at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225-1226, decades of agency interpretation, and even the agency’s own implementing regulations.