those regulations, an immigration judge does not have jurisdiction to conduct a bond hearing, and any possibility of parole lies within the sole discretion of DHS officials. While petitioner does not challenge the government’s initial decision to detain him, he argues that the detention, which has lasted over seven months, has now become prolonged, implicating due process concerns. Petitioner points to a number of recent Ninth Circuit cases as “definitively” establishing that detention becomes “prolonged” after six months, and that such prolonged detention “raises serious constitutional concerns,” such that the government must be required to justify the burden of continued detention at an individualized bond hearing. See, e.g., Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Respondents dispute the applicability of the
holding that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 2254e2 on whether his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a fitness hearing holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel holding that aliens facing prolonged detention under section 1231a6 are entitled to a bond hearing holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review