792 F.Supp.3d 1123
D. Or.2025Background
- Petitioner, a 22-year-old Mexican national, fled Mexico due to credible threats from a drug cartel protected by local authorities.
- He lawfully presented himself at the U.S. border seeking asylum, using the recommended CBP One app, and was paroled into the United States for this purpose in July 2023.
- Petitioner resided lawfully in Oregon, maintained regular contact with immigration authorities, and received work authorization.
- In April 2025, DHS sent a mass email to thousands of parolees, including Petitioner, summarily terminating parole without individualized findings or reference to pending asylum applications.
- At his June 2025 immigration court hearing, after his removal proceedings were dismissed without prejudice, Petitioner was immediately detained by ICE agents without explanation.
- A habeas petition was filed, and the district court ordered his release, finding that the Government's mass termination violated federal law and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court could review parole termination | Court has jurisdiction; mass termination lacked legal authority | Statutory discretion bars judicial review | Court has jurisdiction; judicial review allowed |
| Lawfulness of the mass termination under APA/INA | Termination violated statute/regulations; no individualized process | DHS had discretion, only required notice via email | Termination was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious |
| Whether DHS followed required procedures for parole | DHS failed mandatory procedures for individualized findings | Mass email and citation to statutes/procedures sufficed | Mandatory procedure not followed |
| Suspension Clause’s applicability if statute strips review | Even if review stripped, Suspension Clause preserves habeas rights | Suspension Clause inapplicable in removal context like this | Suspension Clause applies to Petitioner |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (importance of independent judiciary in enforcing rule of law)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (presumption favoring judicial review of immigration actions)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious APA review standard)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (scope of habeas corpus challenges to custody)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (requirement of reasoned explanation for change in agency position)
- Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (necessity of individualized parole determinations)