Ammar Al-Baluchi v. Pete Hegseth

140 F.4th 517 (D.C. Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · June 17, 2025 · No. 23-5251

Summary

The D.C. Circuit dismissed an appeal by Guantánamo detainee Ammar al-Baluchi challenging a district court order that denied his motion to compel the government to convene a Mixed Medical Commission for repatriation eligibility. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the district court’s order was nonfinal and did not satisfy the collateral-order doctrine or the exception for interlocutory injunction orders. Relying on the Third Geneva Convention and Army Regulation 190-8, the court found that even a favorable medical determination would not mandate immediate repatriation while al-Baluchi faces pending military commission proceedings. Consequently, al-Baluchi failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary to establish immediate appellate review.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Judge Garcia; Judge Pillard; Judge Wilkins
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decision date
June 17, 2025
Docket number
23-5251
Procedural posture
Appeal from the District Court for the District of Columbia order denying a motion to compel a Mixed Medical Commission; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Ammar Al-Baluchi v. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, et al.
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

appellate jurisdictionstandard of reviewappellate proceduremilitary law

Practice areas

appellate proceduremilitary lawpost‑conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the D.C. Circuit has jurisdiction to review the district court’s non‑final order denying a motion to compel a Mixed Medical Commission.

Holdings

  1. The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s order because it is not a final decision and does not satisfy either the collateral‑order doctrine or the statutory exception under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1).

Key quotations

Courts of appeals generally have authority to review only “final decisions” of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This rule prevents a party from taking an appeal until the district court enters an order that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” (9)

Factual background

Ammar Al-Baluchi, a Pakistani national detained at Guantánamo Bay since 2006, sought a Mixed Medical Commission to determine his eligibility for repatriation on medical grounds. The district court denied the request, holding that as a detainee captured in a non‑international armed conflict he was not entitled to such a commission under the Third Geneva Convention or Army Regulation 190‑8.

Procedural history

Al-Baluchi filed a habeas petition in 2008; the district court stayed the petition pending a military commission. In 2022 he moved to compel a Mixed Medical Commission under AR 190-8; the district court denied the motion. Al-Baluchi appealed the denial, asserting jurisdiction under the collateral‑order doctrine and 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1). The appellate court found no final order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…