Decisions

S.D. Tex. June 12, 2026 Slip Copy; 2026 WL 1999306 Third country: Cameroon

The court held that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions do not bar habeas, because challenging the designation of a third country never named in the removal order is not a challenge to the execution of that order, and that the petitioner was substantially likely to succeed on her claim that generalised diplomatic assurances from Cameroon cannot substitute for individualised notice and an evidentiary hearing. It entered a preliminary injunction barring removal to any third country until at least ten days’ notice of the proposed country and an individualised hearing before an immigration judge.

Third-country designation Notice Withholding of removal CAT Due process Jurisdiction Diplomatic assurances Chain refoulement

Caution Unpublished slip copy. A preliminary injunction resting on likelihood of success, not a final merits judgment, effective until modified or superseded. The court cautioned that the law in this area is developing rapidly and said it may reconsider the order in light of new developments. It refused one request, declining to order the government itself to move to reopen the immigration proceedings, and declined to consider the status of the petitioner’s motion to reconsider in the immigration court. It treated the Supreme Court’s emergency stay in D.V.D. as not a merits holding. No subsequent history appears as of 7 September 2026.

D. Colo. June 10, 2026 Slip Copy; 2026 WL 1678205 Third country: Cameroon; ICE had earlier sought acceptance from Libya, Tanzania and Lebanon, and had arranged a flight toward Equatorial Guinea

The court refused immediate release and a bond hearing, holding that the petitioner’s own refusal to board his flight made him the impediment to removal. It granted relief in part, ordering that notwithstanding Cameroon’s diplomatic assurances he receive written notice in a language he understands, and at least ten days and a hearing before an immigration judge to raise a fear-based claim, before removal to Cameroon or any other third country.

Third-country designation Notice Due process Diplomatic assurances Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Jurisdiction Class action

Caution Unpublished slip copy. The petitioner was self-represented and the application was liberally construed. The order rests on Pacheco v. Baltazar and on A.A.M. v. Andrews, and presumes familiarity with an earlier related habeas case. Respondents were ordered to file a status report within five days of the hearing, so the operative outcome post-dates this order.

N.D. Cal. May 14, 2026 Slip Copy; 2026 WL 1915726 Third country: Saint Kitts and Nevis

The court granted a preliminary injunction barring removal to Saint Kitts and Nevis, or any other country not designated on the removal order, unless the petitioner is first given notice and an opportunity to pursue fear-based protection, and barring re-detention without notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. It held that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not apply because he challenges the manner of his detention and removal rather than the removal order, and declined to treat the March 2025 policy memorandum or the State Department’s credibility finding on Saint Kitts’ diplomatic assurances as displacing binding circuit precedent on due process.

Third-country designation Notice Withholding of removal CAT Redetention Due process Jurisdiction Diplomatic assurances

Caution A preliminary injunction, resting on likelihood of success and not a final merits ruling; the habeas petition remains pending and the order runs until further order of the court. Unpublished slip copy. An APPEAL WAS FILED IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT ON 14 JULY 2026, so its status should be checked before reliance. The court expressly declined to weigh the evidence about conditions faced by third-country deportees, and did not reach the substantive due process claim.

E.D. Cal. April 27, 2026 Slip Copy; 2026 WL 1133268 Third country: None identified; the government said it was pursuing removal to China, but the court reached the third-country claim because ICE was operating under its third-country removal policy

The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition on the claims that re-detention breached the changed-circumstances requirement and amounted to unconstitutionally indefinite detention, China having repeatedly declined to issue travel documents, and that an earlier preliminary injunction be made permanent. Reaching the third-country claim, she recommended barring any third-country removal without twenty-one days’ written notice in a language the petitioner understands, at least ten days to raise a fear-based claim, a government motion to reopen if reasonable fear is shown, and at least fifteen days to seek reopening if it is not.

Redetention Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Due process Third-country designation Notice Reasonable fear CAT Jurisdiction

Caution This is a findings and recommendation, not a decision of the court, with a seven-day objection period. As of 7 September 2026 no order adopting it appeared, so the docket should be checked before it is treated as operative. Unpublished slip copy. The detention holdings are not independent analysis: the magistrate judge rests on the district judge’s earlier preliminary injunction reasoning because the evidentiary record had not changed. Three of the claims were not reached. The printed text repeatedly miscites the governing regulation.

M.D. Fla. March 20, 2026 2026 WL 787639 Third country: Mexico

Because ICE gave written notice and an informal interview, the petitioner received what the Fifth Amendment requires, and his Zadvydas claim was premature at four months; the petition was denied.

Redetention Notice Informal interview Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Jurisdiction 1252(g) Jurisdiction 1252(b)(9)

Caution Denied without prejudice to refiling after six months. This is a different petitioner from Chavez Barrios v. Ripa and the brief warns that the two Barrios cases must be kept separate in every list.

1st Cir. March 16, 2026

The court granted the government’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s 25 February 2026 judgment setting aside the third-country removal policy, so that the judgment does not take effect while the appeal proceeds. Judge Montecalvo would have denied the stay. The order sets an expedited briefing schedule and directs the parties to address two questions: the significance of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) for the government’s contention that the district court lacked authority to set aside the March 2025 guidance, and whether the appeal as to class members ineligible for statutory withholding under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) can be resolved without reaching procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. The court stated it intends to hold oral argument soon after briefing.

Notice Third-country designation Class relief Jurisdiction Stay pending appeal

Caution A stay order, not a decision on the merits. It leaves the district court’s reasoning intact but unenforceable while the appeal is pending. The appeal remained live as of 1 September 2026, when the appellees filed a citation of supplemental authorities under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j).

E.D. Cal. December 4, 2025 815 F. Supp. 3d 1124; 2025 WL 3485219 Third country: Cameroon

The court held it retained habeas jurisdiction despite section 1252(g) and the pending D.V.D. class action, and that the petitioner was likely to succeed on his due process claim because the Third Country Removal Policy gave him no way to have a negative fear determination by a USCIS officer reviewed by an immigration judge. It enjoined removal to Cameroon or any other third country until he has a meaningful opportunity to present his fear claim before an immigration judge, holding that a discretionary motion to reopen is not an adequate substitute.

Third-country designation Notice Reasonable fear Withholding of removal CAT Due process Jurisdiction Class action

Caution Interim relief only: a temporary restraining order granted in part on a likelihood-of-success standard, not a final judgment. Two of the three requests were treated as moot after the government gave notice and conducted a screening interview during briefing. The motion to dismiss and a separate Zadvydas motion were left unresolved. A further order in the same case dated 19 December 2025 is not part of the document read.

N.D. Cal. October 10, 2025 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201666; 2025 WL 2899220 Third country: Jordan

Serious questions exist that the petitioner may not be detained without notice and a hearing before an immigration judge, or removed to a third country without notice and an opportunity to apply for fear-based relief.

Redetention Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Jurisdiction 1252(g) Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) Jurisdiction 1252(b)(9)

Caution Preliminary injunction on a 'serious questions' showing, not a final merits ruling; issued by a magistrate judge, and the file does not state whether the parties consented; the supplied file is named for the July 26, 2025 temporary restraining order but contains the October 10, 2025 order.

S.D. Tex. September 26, 2025 2025 WL 2774610

ICE re-detained the petitioner without a shown lawful revocation, notice of reasons, or the required informal interview, and his removal is not reasonably foreseeable; release was ordered with notice required once a third country is identified.

Redetention Informal interview Notice Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Withholding of removal Third-country designation Jurisdiction 1252(g)

Caution The third-country notice claim was held premature even as summary judgment on it was denied, and no fixed notice period was set; final judgment was to be entered separately and is not in the file; the government produced no copy of any order revoking supervision; the court noted a split on whether the six-month period resets on re-detention.

E.D. Cal. September 18, 2025 2025 WL 2675760 Third country: Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, or Benin (mentioned to the petitioner; none secured)

The court enjoined third-country removal without written notice, a minimum of ten days to raise a Convention Against Torture claim, and reopening or fifteen days to seek reopening, but declined to order release under Zadvydas.

Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Withholding of removal Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Bond hearing Jurisdiction 1252(g) Diplomatic assurances

Caution Preliminary injunction converted from a temporary restraining order with merits briefing to follow, although the decretal paragraph says 'permanently enjoined'; the bond hearing within 30 days, which the government requested, appears in the analysis but not in the numbered decretal paragraphs; the judge is not named anywhere in the printout; the assurances material comes from the court's quotation of ICE's July 9, 2025 policy, not from any assurance in this case.

D.D.C. September 15, 2025 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180319; 2025 WL 2646888 Third country: Ghana

Five citizens of Nigeria and The Gambia, each of whom had been granted withholding of removal or deferral of removal after an immigration judge found they were more likely than not to face persecution, torture or death at home, were woken in the middle of the night on 5 September 2025 at an immigration detention facility, shackled, and put aboard a United States military cargo plane. They were not allowed to notify family or counsel. One was sent without identification documents. Some were placed in straitjackets for up to sixteen hours, and one says he now has difficulty walking because his was secured so tightly. They were told in the air that they were being taken to Ghana. None is Ghanaian, none has any connection to Ghana, and none had designated Ghana during their immigration proceedings. On arrival they were taken to Dema Camp, described by the court as a remote, open-air detention facility surrounded by armed military guards. At the hearing the government agreed that, although the five hold final orders of removal, they cannot lawfully be returned to their home countries. It said Ghana had assured the United States it would not send them anywhere they would likely be tortured. One of the five was sent back to his home country almost immediately and is in hiding. The government agreed that Ghana appears to be violating the assurance it gave, agreed that the practice "is not okay," and said it could not prevent the repatriation because the United States "does not have the power to tell Ghana what to do." The court denied emergency relief. It held that the plaintiffs had not carried their burden of showing jurisdiction to order what they asked for, and it did not reach the merits. In doing so it said the government's actions "appear to be taken in disregard of or despite its obligations to provide individuals present in the United States with due process and to treat even those who are subject to removal humanely," and "appear to be part of a pattern and widespread effort to evade the government's legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly." It added that "this case is not an outlier." It closed by saying it was "alarmed and dismayed by the circumstances under which these removals are being carried out, especially in light of the government's cavalier acceptance of Plaintiffs' ultimate transfer to countries where they face torture and persecution. But its hands are tied."

Third-country removal Diplomatic assurances Chain refoulement Onward transfer Withholding of removal CAT Notice Access to counsel Manner of removal Restraint during transfer Jurisdiction

Caution The plaintiffs lost. The motion for a temporary restraining order and the motion for emergency interim relief were both denied, on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Nothing in this decision was decided on the merits, and the passages quoted above are the court's observations, not its holdings. They carry weight because of who made them and what was before her, not because they bind anyone. The account of the flight, the straitjackets and Dema Camp is drawn from the plaintiffs' own allegations and declarations as the court recorded them. The court did not make findings on them. What the government did concede on the record, at the hearing, is separate and stronger: that the five cannot lawfully be returned to their home countries, that Ghana appears to be breaking its assurance, and that the United States cannot stop it. This decision was later set out at length and called deeply concerning by the court in Baltodano v. Bondi, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1191.

S.D. Fla. September 9, 2025 824 F. Supp. 3d 1243

The revocation itself was authorized under section 241.4(l)(2)(iii), but the check-in desk conversation was not the required informal interview after return to custody, so seventy-five days of detention without a meaningful opportunity to be heard violated due process.

Redetention Informal interview Notice CAT deferral Jurisdiction 1252(g)

Caution Section 241.4 applied rather than section 241.13 because the petitioner never obtained a section 241.13 determination; the court flagged its disagreement with Chavez Barrios v. Ripa, a decision of the same district, on whether section 241.4(l)(1) process attaches to an (l)(2) revocation; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce.

D. Md. September 8, 2025 2025 WL 2592543 Third country: Australia and Romania

Detention is not authorized by section 1231(a)(6) because, with withholding granted as to Iran and no response from Australia or Romania, there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Redetention Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Withholding of removal Third-country designation Notice Jurisdiction 1252(g)

Caution The six-month Zadvydas presumption was assumed without deciding to apply; the third-country notice claim was stayed because the petitioner is a D.V.D. class member, so the court did not rule on what process is due before a third-country removal; the separate order carrying the decretal terms of release is not in the file.

9th Cir. August 27, 2025 Investigating. A secondary source gives 154 F.4th 989; CourtListener holds the opinion with no reporter citation attached. Third country: Mexico. He held withholding of removal to Cuba. Mexico was never designated as a country of removal in his proceedings.

Jorge Felix Ibarra-Perez was granted withholding of removal to Cuba by an immigration judge. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed him instead to Mexico, a country that had never been designated in his removal proceedings. He objected repeatedly. After two days in Mexico he returned to the United States and sued the federal government for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for false imprisonment, negligence, abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), which bars review of decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal orders, stripped it of jurisdiction, and dismissed. The Court of Appeals reversed and sent the case back. It read 1252(g) narrowly, as the Supreme Court has directed, and held that removing a person to a country his removal order does not name is not the execution of that order. The panel wrote that the government’s reading would "entirely insulate from judicial review any post-hearing decision by ICE to remove noncitizens to third countries where they would be in danger of persecution, torture, and even death." The panel also recorded that withholding of removal is country specific, so that ICE retained authority to remove him to another country authorised by statute. The decision opens the courthouse door. It does not decide whether what was done to him was lawful.

Third-country removal Withholding of removal Country-specific nature of withholding Jurisdiction Judicial review Federal Tort Claims Act Damages ICE policy of 9 July 2025

Caution This is a decision about jurisdiction, not about the merits. The court held only that the case may be heard, and returned it to the district court. Nothing here holds that the removal was unlawful. It is also a damages suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act rather than a habeas petition or a petition for review, so the route it opens is a claim for compensation after the event, not a way of stopping a removal before it happens. The panel divided two to one, Judge R. Nelson dissenting. Rehearing before the full court was refused on 25 June 2026, but thirteen judges recorded their disagreement: Judge Bea, joined by Judges O’Scannlain, Callahan, Bennett, R. Nelson, Bade, Collins, Lee, Bress, Bumatay, VanDyke and Tung, wrote that the panel had nullified the statute. A decision carried by one vote and opposed by thirteen judges of the same court is not settled ground. It binds the Ninth Circuit and nowhere else.

S.D.N.Y. August 26, 2025 798 F. Supp. 3d 400

The government gave no notice of revocation and no interview before re-detaining a man released in 2018, violating its own regulations and due process; release was ordered, and transfer after filing did not defeat jurisdiction.

Redetention Notice Informal interview Jurisdiction 1252(g) Transfer out of district

Caution Granted in part. The court's description of Westley v. Harper as reaching the merits of the section 241.4(l) claim is in tension with the project's earlier note that Westley was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the brief directs that neither characterisation be published until the Westley opinion itself is read.

E.D. Cal. August 20, 2025 2025 WL 2791778

The re-detention was unlawful because ICE gave no informal interview and showed no changed circumstances making removal to China reasonably foreseeable; release was ordered and re-detention barred without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge.

Redetention Informal interview Notice Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Third-country designation Jurisdiction 1252(g)

Caution Temporary restraining order granted in part on a preliminary record, with a preliminary-injunction schedule to follow; the request to enjoin third-country removal was denied without prejudice as not ripe; the order introduces 'five claims' and then lists six, and several regulatory citations are printed irregularly.

S.D. Fla. August 18, 2025

The case concerned the operations of the Florida detention facility commonly called Alligator Alcatraz. The court opened its order by locating it: “This case involves the operations of Alligator Alcatraz, a detention facility designed by the State of Florida and located in Collier County, in the Middle District of Florida.” Detained plaintiffs, together with attorneys and organisations, alleged that state and federal officials had blocked confidential communication between people held at the facility and their lawyers, in breach of the First Amendment. A group of the detained plaintiffs separately alleged that the Executive Office for Immigration Review had breached the Fifth Amendment by failing to identify an immigration court with jurisdiction over their cases. The court dismissed the Fifth Amendment claim: “The Fifth Amendment claim is moot and must be dismissed.” It had been “premised entirely on the contention that ‘Defendants have failed to identify which immigration court has jurisdiction over Alligator Alcatraz.’” Two days before the order the government had given notice that the Executive Office for Immigration Review had designated Krome as the administrative control court for the facility. The court rejected both the capable-of-repetition and the voluntary-cessation exceptions. The court did not decide the First Amendment claims. It held that venue was improper: “Plaintiffs have failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged events substantially occurred here, in the Southern District of Florida.” The claims were transferred to the Middle District of Florida, where the facility sits. The court noted that the airport on which the facility was built “mostly sits in Collier County, though a small portion of the runway juts into Miami-Dade County.”

Access to counsel First Amendment Fifth Amendment Immigration court jurisdiction Venue Mootness Conditions of detention

Caution This decision settles where the case is heard and whether one claim survives. It makes no finding about conditions at the facility and no finding about the treatment of anyone held there. A reporter citation for this decision, 796 F. Supp. 3d 1198, is in circulation. The Coalition has not been able to verify it against any primary source and does not reproduce it. The docket number and the date above are verified from the court record. The transferred case continued in the Middle District of Florida as H.C.R. v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-00747, recorded separately in this register.

S.D. Fla. August 8, 2025 2025 WL 2280485; 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153228 Third country: Guatemala

The emergency motion was denied: section 241.4(l)(2) required no notice or interview and both were in fact given, the Zadvydas claim was premature, and the regulatory stay barred removal to Mexico only.

Redetention Informal interview Notice Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) CAT deferral Third-country designation Jurisdiction 1252(g) Transfer out of district Bond hearing

Caution The brief records that this decision resolves the project's ledger claim 10 against the version previously carried: the motion was denied, and no appellate stay is supported, only the district court's interim order of June 12, 2025 staying transfer and removal. The decision splits from Grigorian, Zhu, Ceesay and Torres on whether section 241.4(l)(1) process attaches to an (l)(2) revocation, and from Gonzalez v. Noem and Zhu on jurisdiction to restrain a transfer.

N.D. Cal. August 6, 2025 2025 WL 2243616

Serious questions exist that due process bars detention or removal to any third country without notice and an opportunity to present a fear-based claim; sections 1252(g), (a)(5), (b)(9) and FARRA do not bar review.

Redetention Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Jurisdiction 1252(g) Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) Jurisdiction 1252(b)(9)

Caution Preliminary injunction on the 'serious questions' standard, converted from a temporary restraining order by consent; every merits finding is framed as a serious question and none is final; no third country is identified anywhere in the file, and the court did not identify the governing detention statute by number.

D. Mass. May 23, 2025 784 F. Supp. 3d 401 Third country: Mexico, which then removed him onward to Guatemala

An immigration judge granted O.C.G. withholding of removal to Guatemala, his home country, after finding it more likely than not that he would suffer serious harm there. The court sets out what happened next: “Two days later, and without any notice, O.C.G. was placed on a bus and sent to Mexico, a country where he was previously held for ransom and raped.” And then: “As a result, O.C.G. was given up to Mexico, which then sent him back to Guatemala, where he remains in hiding today.” The government had filed a declaration, made under oath, stating that O.C.G. said before removal that he had no fear of Mexico. The court records that on 16 May 2025 the government “acknowledged an ‘error’ in their previous filings and statements to the Court.” Finding a likelihood of success on the due process claim, and rejecting the government’s argument under 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) on the ground that “Defendants’ gestalt argument cannot supersede the plain text of the statute as interpreted by authority binding on this Court,” the court ordered the government “to take all immediate steps, including coordinating with Plaintiffs’ counsel, to facilitate the return of O.C.G. to the United States.” The same order records what had been said in the immigration court: “During the withholding-only proceedings, O.C.G. asked if he might be sent to Mexico—because he was afraid of being sent to Mexico—and the immigration judge told him, ‘we cannot send you back to Mexico, sir, because you’re a native of Guatemala.’ ... At the close of that hearing, the government’s attorney clarified with the immigration judge that, because Guatemala was the country of removal designated on O.C.G.’s order of removal, that was the only relevant country for purposes of the withholding-only proceedings, and the immigration judge agreed.” (784 F. Supp. 3d at 407, as quoted in the judgment of 25 February 2026.)

Third-country designation Notice Withholding of removal Chain refoulement Onward transfer Due process Jurisdiction Remedy

Caution A preliminary injunction, not a final judgment, and it concerns one named plaintiff rather than the certified class. It is separate from the April 18, 2025 classwide injunction that the Supreme Court stayed on June 23, 2025, and separate from the February 25, 2026 judgment now on appeal as First Circuit No. 26-1212. The government did not resist this order. Five days later it reported that a Significant Public Benefit Parole packet had been approved and that ICE Air was working to bring him back. He was returned. The court recorded in its judgment of 25 February 2026 that it ordered his return, “which the Government later facilitated,” and the plaintiffs stated that he “has been returned [to the United States] and released.”

W.D. Wash. December 6, 2019 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210865; 2019 WL 6683512 Third country: Somalia

The government's position was not substantially justified, and the court awarded $36,720 in fees and $2,170 in expenses at $450 per hour under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Attorney fees Notice Third-country designation

Caution Fees were denied for the unsuccessful motion-to-enforce phase. The brief notes that a Fifth Circuit decision cited elsewhere in the collection holds the Act does not authorize fees for successful section 2241 motions, so fee recovery depends on the circuit.

W.D. Wash. June 20, 2019 409 F. Supp. 3d 998; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103569; 2019 WL 2548137 Third country: Somalia

DHS may designate a removal country outside removal proceedings, but designating Somalia without notice or an opportunity to be heard violated due process, so proceedings must be reopened before any removal there.

Redetention Notice Third-country designation Withholding of removal CAT deferral Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) Bond hearing Prolonged detention (Zadvydas)

Caution The four-step notice procedure often attributed to this case comes from subsection D of the magistrate judge's report, which the district judge did not adopt; the court's statement that failing to advise of the right to apply for asylum or withholding is itself a due process violation is hedged as what Ninth Circuit case law 'suggests'; the court held detention was not indefinite under Zadvydas and granted only a bond hearing on that score. Any account presenting the case as forbidding administrative designation misstates it.

6th Cir. December 20, 2018 912 F.3d 869 Third country: None (removal to country of origin)

Reversing, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the District Court of jurisdiction over the removal-based claims and that § 1252(f)(1) barred the class-wide injunction on the detention-based claims. It vacated both preliminary injunctions and remanded with directions to dismiss the removal-based claims. Judge White dissented, and would have held that the District Court had jurisdiction. The panel described the case as arising from “the government’s efforts to execute long-standing final removal orders of Iraqi nationals that the United States had, for many years, been unable to execute.”

Jurisdiction stripping Section 1252(g) Section 1252(f)(1) Class-wide injunctive relief Suspension Clause Habeas Preliminary injunction vacated Contrary authority

Caution Contrary authority, and controlling in the Sixth Circuit. It vacated the 24 July 2017 injunction recorded separately in this collection. The panel ruled on jurisdiction and on the form of relief; the lawfulness of the removals themselves, and the process due before an order of supervision is revoked, were not before it. The opinion was first filed unpublished on 20 December 2018 and designated for full-text publication the following day, which is why some sources date it 21 December.

W.D. Mo. March 22, 2018 Unreported; order at ECF No. 20 Third country: None (removal to country of origin)

The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss and granted the habeas petition, ordering immediate release and directing that “Petitioner’s conditions of his order of supervision which were in effect before his detention are reinstated immediately.” The court held it had no authority to examine ICE’s decision to issue or to execute the removal order, but did have jurisdiction over the request for release from detention pending removal. Applying Zadvydas v. Davis to a case where removal was reasonably foreseeable, it weighed the statutory factors and found detention not reasonably necessary to secure removal: “Most notable, is the fact that Petitioner was released on an Order of Supervision in 2012 and has for the past 6 years adhered regularly to the conditions placed upon him.” It added that he had no criminal history and strong family and community ties.

Detention pending removal Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Section 1231(a)(6) Order of supervision Redetention Reinstatement of supervision conditions Habeas jurisdiction

Caution It is an unreported district court order, not binding on any other court. The petitioner held no withholding of removal and no protection under the Convention Against Torture, and no third country was involved; removal was to his country of citizenship. The legal basis is Zadvydas and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), not the post-order custody review regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13. What the order records is a court treating years of compliance with an order of supervision as a reason against redetention, and restoring the supervision conditions that redetention had displaced. A docket number of 5:18-cv-06099 sometimes attached to this case in secondary sources is wrong; that number belongs to an unrelated case.

E.D. Mich. July 24, 2017 261 F. Supp. 3d 820 Third country: None (removal to country of origin)

The court granted a class-wide preliminary injunction halting removals to Iraq until class members could seek relief in the immigration courts. Its account of what had happened: “Without warning, over 1,400 Iraqi nationals discovered that their removal orders — many of which had lain dormant for several years — were now to be immediately enforced, following an agreement reached between the United States and Iraq to facilitate removal.” One named petitioner had been living in her community under a final order of removal since 1986. The court found that the resulting search for counsel had been “significantly impeded by the Government’s successive transfers of many detainees across the country, separating them from their lawyers and the families and communities who can assist in those legal efforts,” and that people who had lived peaceably for years under limited supervision had had little reason to incur the cost of a motion to reopen before the policy changed. Rejecting the government’s position that only the immigration courts could act, it held that “a federal district court is armed with jurisdiction to act as a first responder to protect the writ of habeas corpus and the allied right to due process,” so that people facing grave harm are not removed before having their day in court.

Mass redetention Long-dormant removal orders Bilateral repatriation agreement Habeas jurisdiction Suspension Clause Due process Motions to reopen Transfer of detainees Class action Preliminary injunction

Caution Vacated. The Sixth Circuit held on 20 December 2018 that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter either injunction and remanded with directions to dismiss the removal-based claims. The Sixth Circuit did not disturb the findings of fact recorded here, which is why they are kept in this collection. Removal was to the class members’ country of origin, not to a third country.

3d Cir. December 5, 2008 549 F.3d 235 Third country: None (removal to country of origin)

Precedential. The court held that the District Court lacked habeas jurisdiction and vacated its order, but that the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the petition for review, that the rule of non-inquiry did not bar review, and that the government had denied Khouzam due process. It rejected the argument that assurances from Egypt are categorically insufficient, leaving the question to individualized determination. On the merits: “It is obvious that Khouzam was not afforded notice and a full and fair hearing prior to his imminent removal on the basis of diplomatic assurances. In fact, Khouzam was afforded no notice and no hearing whatsoever.” The government had given him nothing but “a cursory three-line letter dated three months after the termination decision had been made,” and beyond its bare assertions the court found “no record supporting the reliability of the diplomatic assurances.” Because the termination order was invalid and he had been taken into custody on the strength of it, he had to be restored to his earlier terms of release. Remanding to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the court set out what due process requires before removal on assurances: notice, an opportunity to present evidence and argument challenging the reliability of the assurances and the government’s compliance with the regulations before a neutral and impartial decisionmaker, and an individualized determination on a record disclosed to the person.

Diplomatic assurances CAT deferral Termination without notice Fifth Amendment due process Rule of non-inquiry Habeas jurisdiction REAL ID Act section 1252(a)(4) Petition for review Order of supervision Remand to the BIA

Caution The court did not hold that Egypt’s assurances were unreliable. It held that Khouzam was entitled to a hearing at which to test them, and remanded for that hearing. It rejected the argument that assurances from a state with an egregious record of torture are categorically insufficient. Removal here was to the petitioner’s own country, not to a third country.

M.D. Pa. June 15, 2007 497 F. Supp. 2d 615; 2007 WL 1746367 Third country: None (removal to country of origin)

The court refused to dismiss the habeas petition and stayed removal pending the outcome of the proceeding. Khouzam had been released in February 2006 under an order of supervision, after eight years in custody, on a finding that there was no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. When he reported to the ICE facility in York, Pennsylvania on 29 May 2007 as that order required, he was retaken into custody and handed a three-line letter from the Assistant Secretary for ICE stating that the Secretary of Homeland Security had terminated his deferral of removal to Egypt, effective four months earlier, on diplomatic assurances the government would not show him. Rejecting the government’s arguments that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction and that the petition raised non-justiciable political questions, the court held that Khouzam had presented justiciable issues falling within its habeas corpus jurisdiction, and that a stay should continue: granting one “to assure proper observance of the applicable law serves the public interest.”

Diplomatic assurances CAT deferral Termination without notice Redetention at a reporting appointment Order of supervision Habeas jurisdiction Political question Stay of removal

Caution Interim relief only. This was a ruling on a motion to dismiss and a stay application, not a final judgment. This is the first of two opinions in the same case; the merits were decided on 10 January 2008. Removal here was to the petitioner’s own country, Egypt, not to a third country. The Third Circuit later held that the District Court had no habeas jurisdiction over these claims and vacated the January 2008 order on that ground, while granting the same relief on the petition for review.

7th Cir. January 5, 1998 132 F.3d 405 Third country: Russia

At the outset of a one-day hearing, at the request of the government, the immigration judge designated Russia as Mrs. Kossov’s country of deportation and Latvia as Mr. Kossov’s. The hearing and the asylum application concerned Latvia. The judge granted voluntary departure and, in the alternative, ordered them both deported to Russia. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remanded, concluding that the immigration judge had committed errors that severely prejudiced the couple’s ability to present their claim for asylum. The error was the absence of notice: “The IJ never informed the Kossovs, who at the time were without counsel, that they had the right to seek asylum here and introduce evidence specifically directed against deportability to Russia.” The court cited the regulation then in force, 8 C.F.R. 242.17(c)(2), as “providing that immigration judge must advise alien of right to apply for asylum or withholding of deportation with respect to any country specified as a possible deportation site, provided alien ‘expresses fear of persecution or harm upon return to’ such country”. It rejected the argument that designating the country at the start of the hearing was notice enough. That argument “fails miserably”, because the couple appeared without counsel and “It is too much to expect that they should have the expertise to adapt instantaneously to such an unexpected turn of events”. The couple had not raised the point before the Board of Immigration Appeals, which ordinarily forfeits it. The court held that it could reach the issue anyway: “What this Court is in effect asked to review is an order deporting the Kossovs to Russia in the absence of a fair hearing concerning that deportation. The BIA should have recognized sua sponte such a fundamental failure of due process during its consideration of the Kossovs’ challenge to the deportation order.”

Notice Third-country designation Due process Self-represented petitioner Jurisdiction Remand to the BIA

Caution A deportation case decided under the rules in force before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, so its statutory and regulatory references are to provisions that have since been renumbered. The regulation it relied on, 8 C.F.R. 242.17(c)(2), has a successor at 8 C.F.R. 1240.11(c)(1), and the trigger phrase the court placed inside its own quotation marks, “expresses fear of persecution or harm upon return to”, appears in the rule in force today word for word. The Coalition has compared the court’s quotation with the current rule; it has not obtained the 1997 printing of the older one. The reported text is taken from a scanned reporter volume and carries line-break hyphens inside words. The reported decision also includes a separate concurring opinion, which the Coalition has not read.