Saparali Yrysbaev v. Jim Arnott, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri grants Saparali Yrysbaev’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention following the revocation of his immigration parole without prior written notice. The court concludes that it has jurisdiction and that Respondents violated procedural due process by revoking parole without demonstrating changed circumstances or providing adequate process. The court orders Yrysbaev’s immediate release subject to his preexisting parole conditions and enjoins his relocation outside the court’s jurisdiction before compliance with the order.

Holdings

1. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the petition challenged unlawful detention and parole revocation, not the validity of a removal order, expedited-removal system, or the government's decision to seek removal.
2. The government violated Yrysbaev's procedural due process rights by revoking his parole and detaining him without prior written notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a sufficient individualized change in circumstances justifying the revocation.
3. A temporary restraining order was appropriate to prevent respondents from relocating Yrysbaev outside the district before complying with the order because the merits, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public-interest factors favored relief.
4. Because Yrysbaev prevailed and the court found that the government's position was not substantially justified, he may pursue reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, subject to the statute's application and filing 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 a § 2241 petition challenging allegedly unlawful immigration detention.
2. Whether the government violated procedural due process by revoking Yrysbaev's parole and detaining him without prior written notice, a hearing, or an individualized legal justification based on changed circumstances.
3. Whether limited temporary injunctive relief was appropriate to prevent respondents from relocating Yrysbaev outside the district before complying with the release and hearing-related requirements.
4. Whether Yrysbaev could pursue attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Disposition

writ_granted