detention, whether the continued duration of the detention is finite or near conclusion, and the interests served by continued detention,” among others. Orsino, 942 F.Supp.2d at 409; see Debel, 2014 WL 1689042, at *5 (stating that “the principal factor considered in constitutional review of detention pending removal proceedings is the degree to which the proceedings have been prolonged by unreasonable government action”); see also Diop, 656 F.3d at 233 (“This will necessarily be a fact-dependent inquiry that will vary depending on individual circumstances.”). Although it is a close call, applying those factors here, the Court cannot say that Young’s continued detention without a bond hearing has yet crossed the line into a due process violation. First and foremost, “[t]h (S.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Young’s
holding thirtyeight day preappearance detention violated due process holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process holding that continued detention violated due process where a moratorium on removals to haiti in the aftermath of an earthquake rendered the petitioners detention indefinite holding seizure unreasonable due to length of detention of property holding that juvenile pretrial detention implicates due process rights