Phong Doan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Docket: 01-56784
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 27, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Phong Doan, a Vietnamese national with two felony convictions, was ordered removed to Vietnam, which refused to accept him. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) released Doan but required a $10,000 bond. Doan challenged this bond requirement in district court, seeking an injunction against it. The district court denied the injunction, affirming that while 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and (6) does not explicitly authorize a bond, it does not exclude such a condition. The court found that imposing a bond aligns with the conditions of release recognized in Zadvydas, which suggests a reasonableness limitation on post-removal detention. Doan’s legal history includes a 1987 conviction for assault with a firearm and multiple convictions in 1992. After a habeas corpus petition was denied in 2000, the case was remanded, and a bond was set in July 2000, which was paid by Doan's family. The district court ultimately determined the bond was reasonable and within the INS's discretion, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's ruling.
The appellant argues that a bond cannot be legally imposed because it is not explicitly authorized in the relevant statute. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas established that, while the statute did not impose a time limit on detention, it could still be construed to include an implicit limitation, thus allowing for a reasonable duration of detention. The Court identified a presumptive reasonable period of six months and affirmed that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) could impose reasonable conditions on release, including a bond, which the Attorney General's regulations explicitly authorize. The appellant's reliance on an older Eighth Circuit case, Shrode v. Rowoldt, is deemed unpersuasive since that case predates both the relevant regulations and the Zadvydas ruling. Concerns regarding the reasonableness of the bond amount are acknowledged but are not applicable in this case, as the bond's amount has not been challenged. The decision is thus affirmed.
