1:25-cv-06540
N.D. Ill.Aug 29, 2025Background
- Aziz Zamirov, a Kyrgyzstani national, entered the U.S. in April 2023 on parole, which expired in April 2024.
- He applied for asylum and withholding of removal days before his parole expired.
- His initial removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a were terminated by an Immigration Judge on June 12, 2025, at the government's request.
- Immediately after, Zamirov was taken into custody under an expedited removal order issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
- Zamirov filed a habeas corpus petition under § 2241 in the Northern District of Illinois while detained there (later transferred to Indiana), challenging the legality of his detention and removal order.
- The court's order addresses jurisdictional questions surrounding whether it can review expedited removal orders against Zamirov.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review removal order | Court can review the legality of his expedited removal order | Statutes strip courts of jurisdiction over such review | No jurisdiction; review barred by § 1252(a), (e) |
| Eligibility for expedited removal | He cannot be subject to expedited removal due to prior parole | Parole expired, reverting him to 'arriving alien' eligible for expedited removal | Defendants correct; he was subject to expedited removal |
| Ongoing removal proceedings | Still in normal removal proceedings, so expedited removal invalid | Termination of normal proceedings allowed expedited removal | Defendants correct; no ongoing proceedings bar |
| Due process violation | Process violated due process rights | Statutory and regulatory safeguards were provided | No violation; process satisfied due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court limits habeas jurisdiction to certain custodians and localizes review to the place of detention)
- Gamboa v. Daniels, 26 F.4th 410 (proper habeas petition filing vests jurisdiction in court of initial filing)
- Morales-Ramirez v. Reno, 209 F.3d 977 (parole is not equivalent to admission into the U.S.)
- Ibragimov v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 125 (expired parole status reverts alien to 'arriving alien')
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (statute bars court review of discretionary immigration decisions)
- DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (expedited removal review is tightly circumscribed; cannot challenge underlying legality)