Jevanne Garvey v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted Jevanne Garvey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that his continued immigration detention following an immigration judge’s bond determination and DHS’s automatic-stay appeal violated substantive and procedural due process. The court ordered his immediate release, authorized potential Equal Access to Justice Act fees, and enjoined respondents from relocating him outside the court’s jurisdiction before complying with the order.

Holdings

1. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar the district court from exercising habeas jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to prolonged detention without an individualized determination of dangerousness or flight risk.
2. Continued detention of petitioner under the circumstances violated substantive due process because the deprivation of liberty lacked a constitutionally sufficient relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.
3. The automatic stay of an immigration judge's bond determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2), when invoked without standards, a hearing, or any opportunity for the detainee to contest the stay, violated procedural due process as applied to petitioner's continued detention.
4. A temporary restraining order was appropriate to enjoin respondents from relocating petitioner outside the court's jurisdiction before complying with the release order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to prolonged immigration detention.
2. Whether continued detention of a lawful permanent resident for nearly 200 days, after an immigration judge found no danger or flight risk and granted bond, violated substantive due process.
3. Whether the automatic stay of the immigration judge's bond determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2), without an opportunity for the detainee to contest the stay, violated procedural due process.
4. Whether petitioner was entitled to injunctive relief preventing respondents from relocating him outside the court's jurisdiction before compliance with the release order.
5. Whether petitioner could pursue attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Disposition

writ_granted