Jameurahman Noori v. Christopher LaRose, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Jameurahman Noori’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court holds that revoking his humanitarian parole without notice, individualized consideration, reasoning, or an opportunity to be heard violated the Fifth Amendment and that the Government also failed to comply with the applicable parole regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court orders Respondents to release Noori from immigration custody on the same humanitarian-parole conditions previously granted while his asylum claim proceeds.

Holdings

1. A § 2241 habeas petition is an appropriate vehicle for challenging detention resulting from the revocation of humanitarian parole when the petitioner challenges the legality of his custody rather than the underlying removal proceedings.
2. Section 1252(g) does not strip jurisdiction over an independent challenge to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) when the petitioner is not challenging the commencement of proceedings, adjudication of a case, or execution of a removal order.
3. Section 1252(b)(9) does not bar habeas jurisdiction over a challenge to the revocation of humanitarian parole and resulting detention when the petitioner does not seek review of a removal order or challenge the process by which removability will be determined.
4. The Government violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause by revoking Petitioner's humanitarian parole without notice, individual consideration, reasons, or an opportunity to be heard.
5. The Government's revocation of Petitioner's humanitarian parole violated the APA and governing regulations because the Government did not show that a regulatory basis for termination existed and did not provide the required written notice.
6. Petitioner was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and release from immigration custody on the same humanitarian-parole conditions granted on June 17, 2024, while pursuing his asylum claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner's challenge to the revocation of humanitarian parole and resulting detention was cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) or 1252(b)(9) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Petitioner's challenge to his detention.
3. Whether revoking Petitioner's humanitarian parole without notice, reasons, individual consideration, or an opportunity to be heard violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
4. Whether the Government violated the Administrative Procedure Act and its own regulations by revoking humanitarian parole without satisfying the regulatory termination criteria and written-notice requirement.
5. Whether Petitioner was entitled to release from immigration custody on the same humanitarian-parole conditions previously granted.

Disposition

writ_granted