781 F.Supp.3d 137
W.D.N.Y.2025Background
- Sering Ceesay, a 63-year-old Gambian national, lived in the U.S. for over 30 years and suffers from numerous chronic medical conditions.
- Ceesay was ordered removed in 1997 but remained in the U.S., regularly reporting to ICE on an order of supervision for 14 years.
- In February 2025, without advance notice or a request to bring a passport, Ceesay was detained by ICE during a routine check-in and transferred between facilities before being held at Buffalo Federal Detention Facility.
- Ceesay filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing his detention violated due process and ICE's own regulations under the order of supervision.
- The government sought to dismiss the petition, arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure on the merits. The court denied the motion, held a factual hearing, and ordered supplemental briefing.
- The court ultimately ruled in part for Ceesay, finding his detention violated due process and ICE regulations, and ordered his release with conditions for an orderly departure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under § 1252 | Section 1252 doesn't bar habeas claims challenging detention process, not removal. | Section 1252 strips court's jurisdiction over any claims linked to removal or discretionary ICE action. | Jurisdiction exists over procedural challenges; not barred here. |
| Authority to Revoke Release | Only specified officials can revoke supervised release; here, an unauthorized official did it. | Delegation order gave Assistant Field Office Director authority, and power to release includes power to revoke. | Revocation authority not properly delegated; release not lawfully revoked. |
| Due Process in Detention | ICE failed to provide informal interview, notice, and opportunity to contest detention as required by law and regs. | No interview required unless revocation is for violation; Ceesay got all process due in past removal proceedings. | Interview (minimal process) required regardless of grounds; due process violated. |
| Right to Orderly Departure | Notice promised an "orderly departure" before detention; deprivation violates due process. | No clear right to advance notice/orderly departure; phrase is amorphous and not legally enforceable. | "Orderly departure" must have meaning; ICE must provide reasonable opportunity for such preparation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (noncitizens detained after order of removal have due process rights)
- United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (agencies must follow own regulations in removal proceedings)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (§ 1252(b)(9) does not bar all detention challenges in district court)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (noncitizens are persons guaranteed Fifth Amendment due process)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (even lawfully detained persons are owed minimum constitutionally-required process)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for sufficiency of claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading and plausibility)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (constitutional due process protections for noncitizens in the U.S.)