Ernesto Alfonso Perez v. Matthew Mordant et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Ernesto Alfonso Perez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that Perez’s expedited-removal designation, parole revocation, and resulting detention violated the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court ordered the respondents to release Perez within 24 hours and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. Even assuming 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) applied to Perez's claims, the Suspension Clause prevented that provision, or any other INA provision, from stripping the district court of jurisdiction to hear his habeas challenge to the legality of his detention.
2. Perez was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because he challenged the legality of his current detention, rather than the immigration judge's dismissal of his removal proceedings, and the INA provided no administrative review for the challenged expedited-removal, parole-revocation, and detention decisions.
3. ICE violated Perez's Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights by revoking his parole, designating him for expedited removal, and detaining him without reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
4. ICE's revocation of Perez's parole, detention of him, and designation of him for expedited removal were arbitrary and capricious and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act stripped the district court of jurisdiction over Perez's habeas challenge to his expedited-removal designation, parole revocation, and detention.
2. Whether the Suspension Clause preserved habeas jurisdiction despite the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions.
3. Whether Perez was required to exhaust administrative remedies.
4. Whether revoking Perez's parole, designating him for expedited removal, and detaining him without reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard violated procedural due process.
5. Whether ICE's parole revocation and detention decisions were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Disposition

granted