299 F. Supp. 3d 215
D.D.C.2017Background
- Petitioner Terry Rombot, an Indonesian national who overstayed a visa and had a 2008 removal order, seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ICE detention.
- Rombot was placed on an Order of Supervision in 2010 and repeatedly complied with reporting conditions and a Release Notification that promised an opportunity to prepare for an orderly departure.
- He filed multiple stays of removal; ICE approved them through August 2017 but denied a same-day stay application dated August 1, 2017.
- On August 1, 2017, after reporting to ICE, Rombot was detained, shackled, and given a Notice of Revocation of Release; he is confined at Bristol County House of Corrections.
- Rombot alleges ICE violated its own stay-review policies and breached the Release Notification promise; the Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court found jurisdiction under § 2241 to review detention claims and denied the Government’s motion to dismiss, ordering substitution of the proper custodian.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has jurisdiction to hear Rombot's habeas challenge to detention | Rombot: § 2241 permits habeas review of unlawful immigration detention and availability of bail | Government: REAL ID Act and § 1252(g) bar district-court review of immigration removal-related actions | Court: § 2241 jurisdiction exists for detention challenges; motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether ICE's denial of stay and detention violated ICE policies and Release Notification | Rombot: same-day denial and detention despite compliance violated ICE procedures and promise of orderly departure | Government: detention decision falls within ICE removal/decision-making authority (jurisdictional bar implied) | Court: did not resolve merits here; noted factual allegation that promise was not honored and preserved habeas review of detention |
| Proper respondent / venue for habeas petition | Rombot: named respondent was immediate custodian; petition filed in district of confinement | Government: challenged jurisdiction/location | Court: petition meets custodian and venue requirements; directed substitution of Bristol County custodian |
| Availability of relief on habeas for detention conditions tied to removal | Rombot: may seek relief via § 2241 for unlawful detention despite removal order | Government: REAL ID & §1252 cutoff restrict remedies | Court: distinguished jurisdictional limits on review of removal orders from district-court authority to address detention legality under habeas |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div. of Dep't of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over immigration detention challenges)
- Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (interpretation of §1252(g) limitations on review of three discrete removal-related actions)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (habeas petition must be filed in district of confinement)
- Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688 (1st Cir. 2000) (habeas petitioner must name immediate custodian)