A/HRC/7/12/Add.2 page 9 residence.4 Even the weaker form of relief - withholding of removal - is per se unavailable to non-citizens with aggravated felonies sentenced to an aggregate term of at least five years’ imprisonment and to those whom the Attorney General determines have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.5 United States law denies these refugees even a hearing for their refugee claims, instead denying relief on a categorical basis. United States laws therefore contravene the due process and substantive protections of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Convention and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, which allow for exceptions to non-refoulement in only a narrow set of cases and after individualized hearings.6 B. Right to liberty of person 21. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may detain non-citizens under final orders of removal only for the period necessary to bring about actual deportation. Additionally, two United States Supreme Court decisions, Zadvydas v. Davis,7 and Clark v. Martinez,8 placed further limits on the allowable duration of detention. As a result of those decisions, ICE may not detain an individual for longer than six months after the issuance of a final removal order if there is no significant likelihood of actual deportation (for example, because the home country refuses repatriation) in the reasonably foreseeable future. 22. Although these two court decisions limit the ability of ICE to detain non-citizens indefinitely, in practice, United States policy is a long way out of step with international obligations. Immigration enforcement authorities have failed to develop an appropriate appeals procedure, and for all practical purposes have absolute discretion to determine whether a non-citizen may be released from detention. Furthermore, those released from detention as a result of a post-order custody review are released under conditions of supervision, which in turn are monitored by ICE deportation officers. Again, ICE officers have absolute authority to determine whether an individual must return to custody. Given that these discretionary decisions are not subject to judicial review, current United States practices violate international law. 4 See US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part 1, § 1158 (asylum) and Part IV, § 1231 (b) (3) (Restriction on removal to a country where alien’s life or freedom would be threatened). 5 Ibid. 6 The principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. See Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Daniel Bethlehem, “The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement”, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 7 Ref. 533 U.S. 678 (2001). 8 Ref. 125 S. Ct. 716 (2005).