Yun Qui v. Jason Maydak, et al.

Summary

The court denied Yun Qui’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention. It held that Boone County Jailer Jason Maydak was a proper respondent and that Qui was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) after a credible-fear determination and transfer to full removal proceedings. The court also rejected Qui’s due-process, parole, and Administrative Procedure Act claims and dismissed the matter.

Holdings

1. The detainee's jailer, Jason Maydak, was a proper respondent because he had day-to-day custody and control over the facility where Qui was detained.
2. Qui was mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) because he was found to have a credible fear and was transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full removal proceedings for adjudication of his asylum claim.
3. Qui's prior humanitarian parole did not exempt him from mandatory detention because the parole had expired, either by its stated one-year term or when its stated purpose was completed.
4. Qui's current mandatory detention did not violate the Fifth Amendment because his asylum and removal proceedings remained pending and he was not detained under the post-removal-order statute addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis.
5. Any failure to provide written notice of parole termination did not warrant habeas relief because Qui was independently subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), and release would not redress the alleged notice violation.
6. Qui could not obtain relief under the APA because habeas corpus supplied an adequate remedy for his detention challenge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Boone County jailer was a proper respondent to Qui's habeas petition.
2. Whether Qui was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) after being found to have a credible fear and transferred to full removal proceedings.
3. Whether Qui's prior humanitarian parole created an exception to mandatory detention or rendered his detention unlawful when he did not receive written notice of parole termination.
4. Whether Qui's detention violated the Fifth Amendment because it was prolonged, indefinite, or terminated his parole without adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard.
5. Whether Qui could obtain relief under the Administrative Procedure Act when habeas corpus provided an adequate remedy.

Disposition

dismissed