Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted Kayhan Bakhtani’s habeas petition challenging the termination of his immigration parole and continued detention. The court held that the government had not adequately terminated parole on a case-by-case basis or provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and ordered Bakhtani’s immediate release.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether DHS properly terminated Bakhtani's parole under the governing statute and regulations.
- Whether Bakhtani's detention violated due process because he received no notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard before or after termination of parole.
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived the district court of jurisdiction to review the process by which parole was terminated.
- Whether immediate release was the proper remedy for unlawful parole termination and detention.
Holdings
- DHS did not properly terminate Bakhtani's parole because the record contained no evidence that an authorized official made a case-by-case determination addressing the reasons for which Bakhtani had been granted parole.
- Bakhtani's abrupt and continuing detention violated due process because he was not given notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the termination of his parole and his ensuing detention.
- Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not bar the district court's jurisdiction because Bakhtani challenged the process by which parole was terminated rather than an unreviewable discretionary decision itself.
- Because Bakhtani's parole was not lawfully terminated and his detention violated due process, the proper remedy was immediate release.
Key quotations
“Because there is no lawful basis for his detention, this Court joins the numerous district courts that have followed its conclusion in Mata Velasquez: that the only proper remedy is immediate release.” (Analysis preceding Conclusion)
“Because there is no evidence that Bakhtani’s parole was properly terminated, and because his abrupt and continuing detention without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard violates his right to due process, there is no lawful basis for Bakhtani’s continued detention.” (Analysis preceding Conclusion)
Factual background
Kayhan Bakhtani, a native of Afghanistan, entered the United States on May 29, 2024, and was paroled for two years while pursuing available immigration relief. DHS initiated section 240 removal proceedings, and Bakhtani later applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. ICE detained him on December 3, 2025, and terminated his parole by a letter that merely repeated regulatory language and gave no individualized explanation. The record contained no evidence that Bakhtani received notice or a meaningful opportunity to challenge the termination or his resulting detention.
Procedural history
Bakhtani entered the United States on parole while pursuing immigration relief and was placed in section 240 removal proceedings. After ICE detained him and terminated his parole without an individualized explanation or prior opportunity to be heard, he filed a § 2241 habeas petition seeking immediate release. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that termination of parole justified detention and that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) barred judicial review. The court rejected those arguments, granted the petition, ordered Bakhtani's release within 24 hours, and denied the motion to dismiss.
Remand instructions
No remand. Respondents were ordered to release Bakhtani within 24 hours of issuance of the decision and to file a status report confirming his release by February 9, 2026.