Parwinder Kaur v. Kevin Raycraft, Markwayne Mullin, and Pamela Bondi

Summary

This Memorandum of Opinion and Order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in Parwinder Kaur’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. The court addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, administrative exhaustion, and whether the petitioner’s immigration detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or § 1226. The court overrules the respondents’ objections and adopts the Report and Recommendation, including its resolution of the petition.

Holdings

1. Section 1252(g) did not bar the district court from exercising jurisdiction over Kaur's habeas challenge because she challenged the legality of her confinement, not the decision to commence proceedings, adjudicate her immigration case, or execute a removal order.
2. Sections 1252(b)(9) and 1252(a)(5) did not strip the district court of jurisdiction over Kaur's independent challenge to the legality of her detention.
3. Kaur's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2), because the record did not establish that she was an alien seeking admission within the meaning of § 1225(b)(2).
4. Because Kaur's detention was governed by § 1226(a)'s discretionary detention framework, her continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Kaur's § 2241 challenge to the legality of her detention.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), together with § 1252(a)(5), required Kaur to raise her detention challenge only in a petition for review of a final order of removal.
3. Whether administrative exhaustion should be excused as futile.
4. Whether Kaur's detention was governed by the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or the discretionary detention and bond framework of § 1226(a).
5. Whether continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Disposition

writ_granted