Ramudin Mohammadi v. Christopher LaRose; Daniel A. Brightman; Todd Lyons; Kristi Noem; Pamela Bondi; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants in part Ramudin Mohammadi’s habeas petition challenging his immigration detention and the alleged revocation of his humanitarian parole. The court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1225 does not govern his detention and orders an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court reserves ruling on the procedural due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims and orders supplemental briefing regarding the original terms of Mohammadi’s parole.

Holdings

1. The jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over Mohammadi's claims, and any further administrative-exhaustion requirement was waived.
2. Section 1225 did not apply to Mohammadi's detention. Because he had resided in the United States for more than four years after being paroled into the country, his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and he was entitled to an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.
3. The court did not decide whether Mohammadi's parole had expired or had been properly revoked because the evidentiary record was inconclusive. The court ordered supplemental briefing and reserved ruling on that issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252 deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Mohammadi's habeas and related claims.
2. Whether Mohammadi was required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief.
3. Whether Mohammadi's detention was governed by the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
4. Whether the record established that Mohammadi's humanitarian parole had expired or had been lawfully revoked under the governing regulation.

Disposition

other