Sidi Ould Ahmed v. Samuel Olson, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted Sidi Ould Ahmed’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention after ICE revoked his Order of Supervision. The court held that ICE failed to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to respond as required under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), violating due process. The court ordered Ahmed’s immediate release subject to the conditions of his preexisting Order of Supervision and denied his emergency motion as moot.

Holdings

1. When ICE revokes an Order of Supervision under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), it must provide notice adequately identifying the changed circumstances supporting revocation and afford the noncitizen a meaningful opportunity to respond. A notice stating only that circumstances have changed or that removal is likely is insufficient.
2. The mere submission of a request for a travel document, without evidence that the document is likely to be obtained or that removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, is insufficient to establish changed circumstances supporting redetention under § 241.13(i). ICE also may not rely on post-hoc reasons that were not communicated to the detainee in the revocation notice.
3. ICE's failure to provide adequate individualized notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before revoking Ahmed's supervised release and redetaining him violated his Fifth Amendment due-process rights.
4. Immediate release under the conditions of Ahmed's preexisting Order of Supervision was the appropriate remedy because ICE's revocation had not been properly effectuated and Ahmed continued to lack a meaningful opportunity to challenge it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether ICE violated 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i), and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, by revoking Ahmed's Order of Supervision and redetaining him without adequate notice of the reasons for revocation and a meaningful opportunity to respond.
2. Whether ICE's generalized statements that circumstances had changed and that a travel document had been requested established the changed circumstances and significant likelihood of removal required for revocation under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
3. Whether immediate release under the conditions of Ahmed's preexisting Order of Supervision was the appropriate remedy.
4. Whether Ahmed's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was moot after the court granted habeas relief.

Disposition

writ_granted