Louangmilith v. Noem

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California partially granted and partially denied a § 2241 habeas petition brought by a detained Laotian national challenging his detention and potential removal. The court denied relief concerning a stay pending adjudication of a motion to reopen and denied without prejudice the claim challenging the manner of re-detention. It granted relief on the third-country-removal claim, prohibiting removal to a country other than Laos without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and denied the accompanying motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.

Holdings

1. The court lacked jurisdiction over the claim seeking to stay removal solely so that Louangmilith's pending motion to reopen could be adjudicated, because under Rauda v. Jennings that claim challenged the execution of the removal order within the jurisdictional limitation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
2. The court denied the re-detention claim without prejudice because the practical relief sought was obviated by the imminent prospect of removal and because Louangmilith had successfully filed a motion to reopen with counsel despite his detention.
3. Respondents were prohibited from removing Louangmilith to a country other than Laos without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, following the process identified in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under § 2241 to stay Louangmilith's removal pending adjudication of his motion to reopen.
2. Whether ICE's procedures for re-detaining Louangmilith violated procedural due process and required his release.
3. Whether Louangmilith could be removed to a country other than Laos without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
4. Whether the motion for a temporary restraining order remained moot after adjudication of the habeas petition.

Disposition

other