Yujing Shentu v. Director, ICE Honolulu Field Office

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii denied Yujing Shentu’s emergency motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas action for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that her Intensive Supervision Appearance Program conditions did not constitute custody and that her asserted risk of imminent arrest following a Board of Immigration Appeals bond decision was speculative.

Holdings

1. The conditions described by Shentu, including electronic monitoring, warrantless home entries, and travel restrictions, did not establish the significant restraint necessary to satisfy § 2241's custody requirement and did not show clear error in the prior dismissal.
2. The BIA's decision revoking Shentu's bond did not establish that her arrest was imminent; her assertion of imminent arrest was speculative and therefore did not establish custody or habeas jurisdiction.
3. The Rule 59(e) motion was denied because Shentu did not establish clear error, newly discovered evidence sufficient to alter the judgment, or another recognized basis for extraordinary relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the conditions imposed on Shentu through the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program constituted custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and demonstrated clear error in the prior dismissal.
2. Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals decision revoking Shentu's bond constituted newly discovered evidence establishing that her arrest was imminent and that she was in custody under § 2241.
3. Whether the judgment should be altered or amended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

Disposition

dismissed