Floridalma Choy v. Jason Woosley, Jailer, Grayson County Detention Center et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted Floridalma Choy’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the revocation of her immigration Order of Supervision and resulting detention. The court held that 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 required adequate notice of the changed circumstances supporting revocation and an opportunity to respond, and that the notice provided was insufficient. The court ordered Choy’s immediate release subject to the conditions of her preexisting Order of Supervision and denied the respondents’ motion to set aside a prior transfer-related order as moot.

Holdings

1. Because ICE had invoked § 241.13 and its notice relied on changed circumstances and the prospect of expedited removal, § 241.13(i) governed the revocation, and the revocation-stage procedures of § 241.4(l) did not apply.
2. ICE's notice violated § 241.13(i)(3) and due process because it did not adequately explain the changed circumstances or why removal had become significantly likely, depriving Choy of a meaningful opportunity to respond.
3. In a habeas challenge to re-detention under § 241.13, ICE bears the initial burden of producing some evidence of changed circumstances making removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, although the petitioner retains the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to habeas relief.
4. The court would not consider Choy's APA claims because habeas corpus provided an adequate remedy for her challenge to immigration detention.
5. Release was appropriate because the inadequate notice prejudiced Choy by denying her a meaningful opportunity to challenge the revocation, and respondents had not subsequently supplied a clear, consistent reason for her detention.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), rather than § 241.4(l), governed ICE's revocation of Choy's Order of Supervision.
2. Whether ICE's notice adequately identified the reasons for revocation to provide the meaningful opportunity to respond required by § 241.13(i)(3) and due process.
3. Whether ICE produced sufficient evidence of changed circumstances showing a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
4. Whether Choy was prejudiced by the regulatory and due-process violations and whether release was an appropriate habeas remedy.
5. Whether Choy could pursue her detention claims under the Administrative Procedure Act when habeas corpus provided an adequate remedy.

Disposition

writ_granted