Bassirou v. Joyce
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-06373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Bassirou v. Joyce, Judge Ho granted Samb’s petition, finding his ICE detention violated due process and ordering his release.
Bassirou Samb, who was detained by ICE, was ordered released. The order applied to the Respondents responsible for his detention.
What happened
In Bassirou v. Joyce, Bassirou Samb challenged his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after officers arrested him outside an immigration-court hearing. He argued that the arrest occurred without an individualized decision showing that detention was necessary.
The court held that Samb could be detained only under a law allowing discretionary detention, not under the mandatory-detention provision for people seeking admission. The court found no evidence that officials assessed whether Samb was dangerous or likely to flee, and concluded that his arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process guarantee. The court did not decide Samb’s other claims.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the petition and ordered Respondents to release Samb from ICE custody by August 13, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Respondents later certified that Samb was released on August 13, and the court directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Bassirou v. Joyce · No. 1:25-cv-06373
- Ho
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
Bassirou Samb filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and seeking release. Samb alleged that ICE agents arrested him immediately after he left a scheduled immigration-court hearing on August 1, 2025, without explaining why he was being detained. He claimed that the arrest violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
According to the opinion, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered Samb in November 2023 and charged him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Officials served him with an arrest warrant under § 1226 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and released him on his own recognizance. After his release, Samb obtained employment authorization, applied for asylum and related protection, and complied with his immigration-related obligations. The record did not suggest that he had ever been arrested or charged with a crime.
Samb attended his August 1, 2025 immigration hearing, which was continued because no Wolof interpreter was available. He alleged that ICE officers then surrounded and arrested him. ICE served him with a new arrest warrant and detained him first at 26 Federal Plaza and later at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on its decision in a prior related proceeding, which Respondents said involved materially indistinguishable facts and would control this case. The court concluded that Samb was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 as a noncitizen seeking admission. Instead, the court held that his detention was governed by § 1226, which permits detention on a discretionary basis.
The court found no evidence that officials made an individualized custody assessment before Samb’s 2025 arrest. In particular, the record did not show an assessment of his dangerousness, likelihood of fleeing, or any material change in circumstances since his 2023 release. The court held that Samb’s arrest and detention therefore violated the Due Process Clause. It also held that Samb was not required to first appeal to an immigration judge before seeking relief in federal court.
Samb’s petition also raised substantive due-process, Immigration and Nationality Act, and Administrative Procedure Act claims. Because the court concluded that procedural due process required his release, it did not address those claims.
Disposition
The court granted Samb’s petition and ordered Respondents to release him from custody no later than August 13, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Respondents certified that Samb was released from ICE custody on August 13, 2025. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Dale E. Ho signed the opinion and order on August 19, 2025.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.