Mahmood v. Nielsen, 312 F. Supp. 3d 417

Background

Mahmood, a Pakistani national, entered the U.S. in 1992 using a false passport; he was ordered excluded in absentia in 1993.
He pleaded guilty in 1995 to New York Penal Law §221.05 (unlawful possession of up to 25 grams of marijuana) and has no criminal record since 2002; he married a U.S. citizen and has two U.S.-born children.
Mahmood filed multiple I-485/I-601 adjustment and waiver applications (2009, 2014, 2016, reopened 2018); USCIS repeatedly denied §212(h) waiver eligibility primarily because it concluded he did not establish possession of 30 grams or less.
ICE detained Mahmood in August 2017 while he reported under an Order of Supervision; he remained at Hudson County Correctional Facility and by April 11, 2018 had been detained 232 days.
Plaintiff sued alleging unlawful denial of the §212(h) waiver (statutory/regulatory challenge) and that prolonged detention violated Zadvydas; he sought a stay of removal and immediate release.
The court found USCIS erred as a matter of law in concluding §221.05 could not satisfy the ≤30g requirement, but could not review USCIS’s discretionary denial; the court denied a stay of removal but granted immediate release under Zadvydas.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether venue is proper in SDNY for habeas claim arising from detention in New Jersey	Mahmood sought habeas in SDNY alongside his properly venued INA claim	Defendants argued the "immediate custodian" rule (Padilla) limits habeas to district of confinement (D.N.J.)	Court treated immediate custodian rule as venue, exercised pendent venue because INA claim was properly venued in SDNY and factors (economy, convenience, avoidance of piecemeal litigation) favored hearing habeas here
Whether USCIS erred as a matter of law in finding Mahmood ineligible for §212(h) waiver due to unspecified quantity in §221.05	Mahmood: §221.05 violation is a noncriminal violation that necessarily involves ≤25g, satisfying §1182(h) eligibility	USCIS: statute does not specify quantity so applicant failed to show ≤30g	Court: USCIS committed reversible legal error — §221.05 conviction falls within the ≤30g eligibility requirement; but discretionary denial remains unreviewable
Whether the court may review and overturn USCIS’s discretionary denial of the §212(h) waiver	Mahmood argued USCIS abused discretion given his long residence, family ties, lack of serious record	Defendants: discretionary decisions to grant or deny relief are not reviewable (8 U.S.C. §1252 limits)	Court: cannot review USCIS’s discretionary judgment; denied stay of removal because plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success on INA claim
Whether continued detention beyond six months without a reasonably foreseeable removal violates Zadvydas	Mahmood: after 232 days without a travel document and with Pakistan slow to issue documents, there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future	Defendants: removal is reasonably foreseeable because Mahmood was on a manifest and consulate review was pending; venue challenge	Court: Mahmood met his burden under Zadvydas (over 180 days, no travel document procured, Pakistan known to delay); government did not rebut; release ordered as irreparable constitutional harm was shown

Key Cases Cited

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (establishes presumptively reasonable six-month detention and release standard when removal is not reasonably foreseeable)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (immediate custodian rule limiting habeas petitions to district of confinement)
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (Zadvydas burden-shifting framework: alien establishes no significant likelihood of removal, then government must rebut)
Singh v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006) (two-step §212(h) analysis: eligibility then discretionary relief)
Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2009) (courts may review nondiscretionary eligibility determinations but not discretionary denials)