Zakro Roshniashvili v. Toby Allen, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia grants Zakro Roshniashvili’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and orders his immediate release from immigration custody. The court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does not authorize mandatory detention of a noncitizen who entered the United States years earlier and is detained in the interior while removal proceedings are pending. It further concludes that the detention violated the INA and, alternatively, the Fifth Amendment’s procedural due process protections.

Holdings

1. The jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not bar review of the petitioner's challenge to his detention. His claim challenged detention under § 1225, not the commencement of removal proceedings, adjudication of his case, or execution of a removal order.
2. Section 1225(b)(2) does not authorize mandatory detention of a noncitizen who entered the United States and has lived in the interior for an extended period while removal proceedings are pending. Section 1226, rather than § 1225, governs detention of such a person.
3. The detention was unlawful because § 1226(a) permits arrest and detention only on a warrant issued by the Attorney General, and the record contained no indication that a warrant supported the petitioner's arrest.
4. Detaining the petitioner without a hearing or meaningful opportunity to challenge the detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
5. Immediate release, rather than another attempt to justify detention through a bond hearing, was the proper remedy because the respondents had not established any lawful basis for the arrest or detention.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) or 1252(g) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over a habeas challenge to the petitioner's immigration detention.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than § 1226(a), authorized mandatory detention of a noncitizen who had entered the United States more than three years earlier and was living in the interior while removal proceedings remained pending.
3. Whether detention under the respondents' interpretation of the INA was unlawful because § 1226(a) requires an arrest warrant and no warrant was shown.
4. Whether detention without a hearing or other meaningful process violated the petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process.
5. Whether immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, was the proper habeas remedy.

Disposition

writ_granted