Carlos David Guaira Utrera v. Jim Arnott, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted Carlos David Guaira Utrera's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that DHS revoked his immigration parole without demonstrating a sufficient change in circumstances or providing constitutionally adequate procedural protections, and ordered his immediate release subject to his prior parole conditions.

Holdings

1. The jurisdiction-stripping provisions in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(e)(3), 1252(g), and 1252(b)(9) did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction because petitioner challenged the lawfulness of his detention, not the validity of a statute, regulation, written policy, removal order, or removal decision.
2. The government violated petitioner's procedural due process rights by revoking his parole and detaining him without prior notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, a sufficient change in circumstances, or individualized legal justification.
3. A limited temporary restraining order was appropriate to prevent respondents from relocating petitioner outside the district before complying with the release order.
4. Petitioner may pursue reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act because he prevailed and the government's position was not substantially justified, subject to statutory eligibility and application requirements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(e)(3), 1252(g), or 1252(b)(9) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over petitioner's § 2241 challenge to allegedly unlawful immigration detention.
2. Whether revoking petitioner's parole and detaining him without prior written notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, a sufficient change in circumstances, or individualized legal justification violated procedural due process.
3. Whether limited injunctive relief was appropriate to prevent respondents from relocating petitioner outside the district before complying with the release order.
4. Whether petitioner could pursue attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Disposition

writ_granted