Sergei Izbitski v. Ray Carnes, Warden, Torrance County Detention Facility; Marissa A. Flores, Director of El Paso Field Office; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States

Summary

In this proposed findings and recommended disposition, a United States magistrate judge recommends granting Sergei Izbitski’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. The recommendation concludes that Izbitski’s continued immigration detention violates the Fifth Amendment under Zadvydas v. Davis because there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. It also recommends waiving administrative exhaustion and ordering Izbitski’s immediate release subject to restoration of his prior Order of Supervision.

Holdings

1. A detained person who has been held beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period and provides good reason to believe that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future is entitled to relief unless the government rebuts that showing with sufficient evidence. On the undisputed facts, Izbitski's indefinite detention violated the Fifth Amendment and warranted habeas relief.
2. The court should waive the prudential exhaustion requirement for Izbitski's indefinite-detention claim.
3. The court should not reach the merits of the APA claim because the recommended grant of habeas relief rendered that request moot.
4. The court should decline to address the request to restrain further detention or impose restrictions on liberty because it was not adequately supported or particularized.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Izbitski's nearly seven-month post-removal-order detention violated the Fifth Amendment and was unauthorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
2. Whether the court should waive the prudential exhaustion requirement for the § 2241 indefinite-detention claim.
3. Whether the court should address Izbitski's Administrative Procedure Act claim and request to restrict further detention or alternatives to detention.

Disposition

other