"The court concludes that petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and will therefore grant his application for habeas corpus relief. The court agrees with the reasoning of the decisions of the majority of courts to have considered this issue, including all other district courts in this Circuit, that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) requires that an alien be taken into custody immediately or shortly after release from custody on the removable offense. The court finds that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) is unambiguous with respect to the requirement that the DHS detain individuals under that section “upon release” from criminal custody and that this unambiguous language does not countenance lengthy delays in taking an individual into immigration custody such as occurred here. Accordingly, the court may not defer to the decision of the BIA in Rojas that the statute is ambiguous and allows for immigration mandatory detention even after a lengthy gap in time between release from criminal custody and arrest by immigration officials. ... Because petitioner was not detained by immigration officials immediately upon his release from custody after serving his state prison sentence for possession of a controlled substance for sale, and there was no nexus between his 2004 crime and his immigration detention, he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)." - Bumanlag v. Durfor, Mar. 15, 2013.
Hats off to attorney Steven Jeffrey Malm!