Henry Paul Paza Iza v. Anthony J. Larocco, et al.

Summary

The Eastern District of New York granted a temporary restraining order requiring ICE to immediately release Henry Paul Paza Iza and prohibiting his redetention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court concluded that his detention was instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which required an individualized detention determination and procedural protections. The order found a clear likelihood of success on the Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim, irreparable harm, and that relief was in the public interest.

Holdings

1. Mr. Iza was not detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because, although he was an applicant for admission and was not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission, he was not seeking admission when ICE arrested him after he had lived in the United States for several years.
2. Because § 1225(b)(2) did not authorize the detention, Mr. Iza's detention was governed by § 1226(a), which permits detention or release on bond or conditional parole pending a removal decision.
3. Mr. Iza demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on his claim that detention without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized determination of flight risk or dangerousness violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
4. The requirements for emergency injunctive relief were satisfied because petitioner showed a clear likelihood of success, strong irreparable harm from continued detention, and that relief was in the public interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the emergency petition should be construed to seek a temporary restraining order in addition to habeas relief.
2. Whether Mr. Iza's detention was authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
3. Whether Mr. Iza's detention was instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
4. Whether detaining Mr. Iza without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized determination of flight risk or dangerousness violated the Fifth Amendment's procedural due process guarantee.
5. Whether the requirements for a temporary restraining order were satisfied.

Disposition

other