Umar Hayat v. David O’Neill, Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Philadelphia Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

Summary

The court granted Umar Hayat’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his detention without an individualized bond hearing. It held that Hayat, who had previously entered and resided in the United States, was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225(b)(2), and was therefore entitled to a bond hearing. The government was ordered to provide a hearing within twenty-one days or release him.

Holdings

1. The INA provisions cited by the respondent did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over Hayat’s collateral challenge to continued detention without a bond hearing.
2. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) did not govern Hayat’s detention because he was not an applicant for admission who was actively seeking admission when he was arrested.
3. Hayat was detained pursuant to § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), and therefore was entitled to an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), § 1252(b)(9), or § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Hayat’s § 2241 challenge to detention without a bond hearing.
2. Whether Hayat, who had previously entered and resided in the United States, was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) as an applicant for admission seeking admission.
3. Whether Hayat’s detention was governed instead by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), entitling him to an individualized bond hearing.

Disposition

writ_granted