N-E-M-B v. Wamsley

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon grants N-E-M-B’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on claims challenging the revocation of conditional parole and resulting detention under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Fifth Amendment. The court holds that the petitioner remained in custody for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241, that the case was not moot under the voluntary-cessation doctrine, and that exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile. The court grants relief on Counts Two and Five.

Holdings

1. A petitioner who was in custody when filing a § 2241 petition and challenges the legal authority for that custody remains within the core of habeas even if the government later releases him.
2. The government's interim release of Petitioner did not moot the petition because Respondents failed to establish that unlawful redetention could not reasonably be expected to recur or that the release completely and irrevocably eradicated the alleged violation.
3. The court excused prudential exhaustion because further administrative review would be futile and the challenged constitutional and custody procedures were outside the BIA's authority to correct.
4. Respondents violated the APA by revoking Petitioner's conditional parole and detaining him without following the INA, its implementing regulations, and the governing case law requiring an individualized basis for revocation.
5. Revoking Petitioner's conditional parole and detaining him without notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an individualized determination that he was a danger or flight risk violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
6. Before redetaining Petitioner, Respondents must provide written notice of the reasons for revocation and a hearing before an immigration judge at which the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court retained habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after Petitioner was released from detention following the filing of his petition.
2. Whether the government's temporary release of Petitioner rendered the habeas petition moot under the voluntary-cessation doctrine.
3. Whether prudential exhaustion should be excused because further administrative review would be futile and because the challenged detention procedures were not correctable by the BIA.
4. Whether Respondents violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act by revoking Petitioner's conditional parole and detaining him without following the governing statutory and regulatory procedures.
5. Whether Respondents violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his conditional parole and detaining him without notice, a hearing, or an individualized finding that he was a danger or flight risk.
6. What relief was necessary to prevent unlawful redetention and removal of Petitioner from the District of Oregon.

Disposition

granted