Giorgi Toshkhua v. Barry Smith, et al.

Summary

The court grants Giorgi Toshkhua’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his immigration detention. It holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs his detention and that he was entitled to an individualized custody determination and bond hearing, rather than detention under the expedited-removal provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II). The court also voids the February 4, 2026 Notice to Appear because it contained inaccurate information and prohibits DHS from transferring Toshkhua outside the district without court authorization.

Holdings

1. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction because Toshkhua was confined in the Northern District of Alabama and challenged the constitutionality of his confinement.
2. On the record presented, 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II), governed Toshkhua's detention.
3. Because Toshkhua was detained under § 1226, he was entitled to an individualized custody determination and a bond hearing.
4. The respondents violated Toshkhua's Fifth Amendment due process rights by detaining him under § 1226 without a bond hearing.
5. The February 4, 2026 Notice to Appear was void because it contained false information concerning Toshkhua's entry, parole, and asylum application.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over Toshkhua's challenge to his immigration detention.
2. Whether Toshkhua's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
3. Whether a person who had been paroled into the United States, had a pending asylum application, and had been continuously present for more than three years was subject to detention under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II).
4. Whether detention under § 1226 without a bond hearing violated the statute and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
5. Whether the February 4, 2026 Notice to Appear should be voided because it contained materially false information.

Disposition

writ_granted