Zhilbert Khachikian v. Jeremy Casey, Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility; Joseph Freden, Acting Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Zhilbert Khachikian’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention. The court concludes that ICE failed to comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) governing revocation of supervised release, including requirements concerning changed circumstances, notice of reasons, and an opportunity to respond. The order addresses detention pending removal to Iran and the jurisdictional effect of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).

Holdings

1. Section 1252(g) did not bar jurisdiction because Khachikian challenged the legality of his detention and alleged violations of mandatory statutory, regulatory, and constitutional duties, rather than directly challenging the validity or execution of his removal order.
2. ICE unlawfully revoked Khachikian's supervised release because it did not establish that, on account of changed circumstances, there was a significant likelihood that he could be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future before revoking his release.
3. ICE violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) by failing to provide Khachikian with the reasons for revoking his release, thereby preventing him from meaningfully responding, submitting evidence, and obtaining an evaluation of contested facts.
4. The respondents' argument that Khachikian's alleged refusal to cooperate authorized continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) was moot because the respondents completed and submitted the travel-document request using their own resources.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred the district court from exercising habeas jurisdiction over Khachikian's challenge to the legality of his immigration detention.
2. Whether ICE unlawfully revoked Khachikian's supervised release under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) without first determining, based on changed circumstances, that he was significantly likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
3. Whether ICE violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) by failing to notify Khachikian of the reasons for revocation and provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.
4. Whether the respondents' argument under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) that Khachikian failed to cooperate with travel-document efforts authorized continued detention.
5. Whether Khachikian's claims concerning removal to a third country and declaratory relief required decision.

Disposition

writ_granted