Vikas Kumar v. Christopher LaRose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Vikas Kumar’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court holds that revoking Kumar’s conditional immigration parole without notice, reasons, or an opportunity for a hearing violated the Due Process Clause. The court orders his immediate release subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole and requires notice and a hearing before any redetention.

Holdings

1. A federal district court retains habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over an ancillary or collateral challenge to immigration detention that arises independently from the removal process, even though challenges to final removal orders belong in the court of appeals.
2. A noncitizen released from custody on conditional parole has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, and the government may not summarily revoke that parole and re-detain the noncitizen without constitutionally adequate procedural protections.
3. Before re-detaining Petitioner, the government must provide notice of the reasons for parole revocation and a hearing before a neutral decision maker; the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
4. The court will consider a timely application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act if filed within thirty days after final judgment and satisfying the statutory requirements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over a challenge to immigration detention arising independently from the removal process.
2. Whether revoking Petitioner's conditional parole and detaining him without notice, reasons, or a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
3. What procedural protections are required before the government may re-detain Petitioner after revoking his parole.
4. Whether Petitioner may seek attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act after judgment.

Disposition

writ_granted