Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 26, 2025

Khabazha v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-05279
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
ImmigrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Khabazha v. Joyce, Judge Furman ordered a conference and temporarily barred Khabazha’s removal while the petition remains pending.

Who this affects

Meysam Khabazha, the respondents, and their counsel. Khabazha could not be removed from the United States unless and until the court ordered otherwise, and counsel had to comply with the conference, service, filing, and appearance requirements.

What happened

In Meysam Khabazha v. William Joyce et al., the court ordered counsel for all parties to attend a telephone conference on June 30, 2025, about how to handle Khabazha’s petition.

The court required the parties to submit a joint letter addressing whether the conference was needed, proposing a briefing schedule if appropriate, and addressing whether Khabazha was in the Southern District of New York when he filed the petition. Khabazha also could not be removed from the United States unless the court later ordered otherwise.

Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide the petition’s underlying claims. He also ordered Khabazha’s counsel to serve the petition and related papers, required respondents’ counsel to appear formally, and set other filing and conference requirements.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Khabazha v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement · No. 1:25-cv-05279
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
June 26, 2025

Nature of the Order

This is a conference and case-management order. The opinion does not decide the merits of Khabazha’s petition.

Orders Regarding the Conference

The court ordered counsel for all parties to appear remotely by telephone for a conference on June 30, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel were required to confer beforehand and submit a joint letter by June 27, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The letter had to state whether the conference was necessary and address how the court should handle the petition. If the parties believed briefing was appropriate instead, they had to propose an expedited or other briefing schedule.

The respondents also had to address whether Khabazha was located in the Southern District of New York when he filed the petition, as alleged in the petition. The order provided that counsel would not need to attend if the case had been settled or otherwise terminated and proof of that termination was filed before the conference.

Temporary Protection Against Removal

To preserve the court’s jurisdiction while it considered the petition, the court ordered that Khabazha not be removed from the United States unless and until the court ordered otherwise. The order cited other decisions discussing temporary restrictions on immigration authorities’ removal of individuals when necessary to preserve a federal court’s jurisdiction.

Other Requirements

The court required all counsel to register promptly as electronic filing users and to follow the court’s individual rules. Unless the court granted permission through a letter-motion, pretrial conferences had to be attended by the attorney who would serve as principal trial counsel. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn the conference had to be made by letter-motion at least 48 hours in advance and include specified information about prior requests, consent, and the next scheduled appearance.

Khabazha’s counsel had to serve respondents by June 26, 2025, with the petition, accompanying papers, and the order, using email to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and overnight mail, and then promptly file proof of service. Respondents’ counsel had to promptly file notices of appearance.

Disposition

The court issued the conference and case-management directives and temporarily barred Khabazha’s removal to preserve jurisdiction. It did not rule on the petition’s underlying legal claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.