By Ashley Perham
Charleston Gazette-Mail
Last week, a federal district court judge ruled that the government has violated the due process rights of two people who had entered the country illegally and were arrested this month on Interstate 77 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Judge Joseph Goodwin ordered that the immigrants be released immediately from the South Central Regional Jail, where they were being held, and that they cannot be re-detained without the determination of an immigration judge or a “significant change” in circumstances.
Additionally, Judge Thomas Johnston heard two similar cases the day after Goodwin released his ruling. Johnston said he could not ignore the ruling and has taken the matter under advisement. The cases were the first to be heard among at least 11 habeas corpus petitions filed in the Southern District of West Virginia this month related to ICE activity in the area.
“Habeas corpus” is a legal term typically used in cases where a prisoner says they are being held illegally.
In these four petitions, all filed by Mountain State Justice, the plaintiffs allege their constitutional due process rights were violated because they were being held without bail or an individualized determination performed by a neutral judicial officer — such as an immigration judge.
According to the petitions, the plaintiffs believe the detentions are not based on any criminal conviction.
Goodwin hearing
Goodwin heard the cases Tuesday of Damary Alejandra Rodriguez Flores and Antony Segundo Larrazabal-Gonzalez.
According to court filings, Flores is from Honduras. She was arrested on Jan. 13 near the Ghent tollbooth on Interstate 64/77, also known as the West Virginia Turnpike, in Raleigh County with her husband Manuel de Jesus Reyes Munguia and Larrazabal-Gonzalez.
Munguia also filed a habeas corpus case. It ended after Munguia, who holds Temporary Protected Status and is, therefore, in the country legally, according to Mountain State Justice filings, was released from jail.
Flores and Munguia live in Charlotte, North Carolina. Larrazabal-Gonzalez lives in Atlanta. Larrazabal-Gonzalez, of Venezuela, entered the United States illegally in 2023. He was released on an order of recognizance — meaning he was determined not to be a flight risk and would reappear at court hearings.
He has attended multiple immigration court dates, with his next date set for Oct. 19, although that date was moved up to Jan. 29 after his arrest, according to court filings and Chris Arthur, assistant U.S. attorney.
In court, attorneys said the three were pulled over by West Virginia State Police troopers, who then contacted ICE to come to the traffic stop.
Goodwin said he was frustrated by the lack of knowledge the assistant U.S. attorneys had about the stop. They could not say why the stop happened, neither could they give the names of the involved law enforcement officers. They also could not say what the plaintiffs had said to cause ICE to confirm they were here illegally.
Jonathan Sidney, an attorney with Mountain State Justice, pointed out that ICE incorrectly identified that Munguia was here illegally.
Goodwin repeatedly said the government had no evidence to justify the detention, at one point asking, “Do you think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind for liberty?”
Johnston hearing
Johnston heard the cases of Frezgi Kelete Mehari and Danny Briceno Solano. Mehari, arrested around Jan. 13, is from Eritrea.
He entered the country illegally in June 2023. According to his petition, in Eritrea, “he suffered detention, mistreatment, and abuse in connection with compulsory military service and political expression.”
A long-haul truck driver, Mehari has filed an application for asylum based on past persecution if he returns to Eritrea. He has an immigration court date in July in San Francisco.
Solano, of Venezuela, has also filed an application for asylum based on persecution and kidnapping he said he experienced in his home country. He went through the removal process last January, but that proceeding was dismissed on a motion from the Department of Homeland Security, according to court documents. He was arrested on the West Virginia Turnpike on Jan. 11.
In court, Sidney said Mehari was arrested after he pulled into a truck weigh station. There, a public service officer called ICE agents.
Solano was pulled over by the State Police for a paper license plate with other issues, according to Arthur.
Johnston initially offered the parties an undisclosed resolution. After about 90 minutes of discussion, the parties could not come to an agreement and a hearing was held.
Johnston, who said he had read Goodwin’s order, had similar issues with the state’s case.
He said the government’s premise was that the petitioners were subject to mandatory detention and not entitled to a hearing. Johnston asked what would happen if a state trooper or ICE agent made a mistake, and someone here legally was detained but couldn’t get a hearing.
“That flies in the face of a fundamental concept of due process,” he said.
Arthur said the plaintiffs could file an appeal in a district court in Washington, D.C., or possibly get a hearing in immigration court or file an appeal to the DHS, but Johnston said it wasn’t enough.
He questioned how someone speaking Mehari’s language — one Johnston couldn’t pronounce — could effectively access due process in Washington, D.C., from the South Central jail.
Conflict over the law
All of the legal briefs in the cases are unavailable to the public, but, according to arguments in court, there are questions in courts nationwide on how the U.S. government is using immigration law.
In the past, immigrants entering illegally at the border, defined as “seeking admission,” were subject to mandatory detention. Immigrants who entered illegally and were residents of the United States when they were detained were not subject to mandatory detention, according to an argument from Sidney.
Arthur argued that if the immigrants were here illegally, then what were they doing if not “seeking admission”?
“They are here illegally,” Arthur said, “and they have no legal right to be here.”
Sidney said the U.S. government applying the phrase “seeking admission” to anyone residing in the country illegally is a new way of using the law. He also argued that the government could not tell a noncitizen they could live in the country and then change that determination without cause.
Arthur said a “catch-and-release” policy was an administrative choice, in this case, of former President Joe Biden’s administration. It was not in the law.
Sidney said there have been more than 360 similar cases in federal courts nationwide, with the majority of judges rejecting the change in how the law is used. Arthur said there were at least 50 cases where judges ruled in favor of the government on the application of the law.
Goodwin order
In nearly identical rulings, Goodwin ordered that Larrazabal-Gonzalez and Flores be immediately released from civil immigration custody.
He also wrote that ICE is prohibited from re-arresting and detaining them, “absent significant change in circumstances to justify detention or subject to the determination of an Immigration Judge.”
Goodwin wrote that he also was considering the broader context of immigration arrests around the country when making his decision.
He wrote that he does not supervise immigration or enforcement and cannot determine whether someone should be removed from custody. He said he does have “a narrow, unavoidable duty to ensure that custody itself is lawful.”
“When the Government confines a person in a jail and, when called upon, cannot articulate the facts or authority justifying that confinement, the detention violates the Fifth Amendment,” Goodwin wrote.
The Fifth Amendment requires due process of law if someone is deprived of life, liberty or property.
Recent enforcement
According to a Friday news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ICE conducted a 15-day enforcement action in West Virginia — resulting in 650 arrests — from Jan. 4-19.
According to the news release, “several of those arrested have serious criminal histories, including convictions for child sex abuse, drug possession and endangering the welfare of children.”
In the Southern District of West Virginia, about 10 of the arrests resulted in federal criminal charges. Search warrants executed on Jan. 16 at the Rio Grande Mexican Restaurant, 503 First Ave., in Nitro, and a residence in Nitro resulted in charges against six people for misuse of a Social Security number and charges against two people for aiding and abetting alien harboring, aiding and abetting the unlawful employment of aliens and aiding and abetting fraud and misuse of visas, permits and other documents.
See more from the Charleston Gazette-Mail