第五巡回上诉法院全院裁定：长期居住的无证移民无权要求保释听证，强制拘留合宪
新奥尔良——美国联邦第五巡回上诉法院10月23日以全院（en banc）形式就 Sosnava Rodriguez 诉 Ortega 一案作出裁决：依据《移民与国籍法》第1225(b)(2)(A)条作为「申请入境者」被强制拘留的非公民，没有依联邦宪法要求举行个别保释听证的权利，拘留与否与其危险性或逃亡风险无关。多数意见由法官 Wilson 撰写，首席法官 Elrod 加入。
三名上诉人均为长期居住在美国的无证移民。墨西哥籍的 Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez 在美国生活已有22年；墨西哥籍的 Alejandro Villegas Angel 自2011年起居住在美国，有两名美国公民子女；洪都拉斯籍的 Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado 也育有一名美国公民子女。三人均在德州因交通拦查被移民与海关执法局（ICE）拘留，关押在位于 Taylor 的 T. Don Hutto 拘留中心，均无犯罪记录。此前，联邦地区法院在三人的人身保护令申请中裁定政府须先举行保释听证，并下令释放三人，本日全院裁决推翻了这些命令。
此案源于国土安全部近年来对移民法的重新解释：凡未经检查入境者，即使已在美国内陆居住多年，也被视为「正在申请入境」，须依第1225条强制拘留且不得保释。今年7月2日，该院一个三人合议庭曾裁定，正当程序要求在拘留满90天内为被拘留者举行保释听证；7月10日，全院决定重审此案并撤销合议庭裁决，9月24日听取口头辩论后于23日宣判。多数意见认为，程序性正当程序不要求就法律规定本身并不考量的事实（危险性、逃亡风险）举行听证；实体性正当程序方面，在遣返程序期间免于羁押的权利并非根植于美国的历史与传统，决定拘留的是其入境身份，而不是其在美国居住的实际年数。
第五巡回上诉法院的管辖范围涵盖德州、路易斯安那州和密西西比州，是全美移民拘留人数最多的地区之一。裁决生效后，辖区内的被拘留者仍可通过人身保护令挑战移民部门对自己作出的身份归类，但不能再以正当程序为由要求保释听证。三名上诉人由 National Immigration Project、American Immigration Council 等移民法律组织代理。司法部民事司助理部长 Brett Shumate 今年7月就本案的临时裁定表示，该裁定明确「非法外国人没有在遣返程序期间在美国自由行动的宪法权利」。
来源：GSM·美国
Fifth Circuit, Sitting En Banc, Rules Long-Resident Undocumented Immigrants Have No Constitutional Right to Bond Hearings
NEW ORLEANS — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled on October 23 in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega that noncitizens detained as "applicants for admission" under section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act have no constitutional right to an individualized bond hearing, and that dangerousness and flight risk are immaterial under the mandatory-detention statute. The majority opinion was written by Judge Wilson and joined by Chief Judge Elrod.
The three petitioners are long-term undocumented residents of the United States. Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, a Mexican national, has lived in the United States for 22 years. Alejandro Villegas Angel, also a Mexican national, has lived in the country since 2011 and has two U.S.-citizen children. Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado, a Honduran national, has a U.S.-citizen child. All three were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following traffic stops in Texas and held at the T. Don Hutto Detention Center in Taylor; none has a criminal history. Federal district courts had granted their habeas petitions, ordering bond hearings and their release; the en banc court reversed those orders.
The case stems from the Department of Homeland Security's recent reinterpretation of immigration law, under which people who entered the country without inspection are treated as "applicants for admission" subject to mandatory detention without bond, even after years of residence in the interior. On July 2, a three-judge panel of the court had held that due process requires a bond hearing within 90 days of detention. The full court vacated that ruling on July 10 and reheard argument on September 24. The majority concluded that procedural due process does not require hearings into facts the statute itself does not consider, and that a right to be free from detention during removal proceedings is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition; what governs detention is the manner of entry, not the length of actual presence.
The Fifth Circuit covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, a region with one of the largest immigration-detention populations in the country. Detainees in the circuit may still challenge the government's classification of their status through habeas petitions, but can no longer demand bond hearings on due process grounds. The petitioners are represented by organizations including the National Immigration Project and the American Immigration Council. In July, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the Justice Department's Civil Division said of an interim ruling in the case that it made clear that "illegal aliens do not have a constitutional right to roam free in the United States during their removal proceedings."
Source: GSM · America
来源：GSM·美国（原文链接）
图片来源：位于新奥尔良的美国联邦第五巡回上诉法院大楼。 Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)
