Grigoryan v. English

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted Andranik Grigoryan’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his continued immigration detention after a final removal order. Applying Zadvydas v. Davis, the court held that the government had not shown that Grigoryan’s removal to Uzbekistan was reasonably foreseeable and ordered his release subject to appropriate conditions of supervised release.

Holdings

1. The court had jurisdiction under § 2241 to review Grigoryan's challenge to his post-removal-order immigration detention; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9) did not divest the court of jurisdiction over this detention claim.
2. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, continued detention after the removal period is authorized only for covered noncitizens and only while removal is reasonably foreseeable. When a detainee has provided good reason to believe that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must produce evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.
3. Because the respondent failed to establish that Grigoryan's removal was reasonably foreseeable, the court was required to grant habeas relief and order his release subject to appropriate conditions of supervised release.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Grigoryan's post-removal-order immigration detention despite 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9).
2. Whether continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 was lawful when Grigoryan had been detained for more than six months after the removal order became final and the government had not shown that removal was reasonably foreseeable.

Disposition

writ_granted