Khevtsuriani v. Flanagan
Georgi Khevtsuriani v. Bryan Flanagan, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-08562
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Khevtsuriani v. Flanagan, Judge Cronan ordered Petitioner to explain why the court has jurisdiction over his case.
Georgi Khevtsuriani must explain by October 23, 2025 why the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his action; the respondents and the United States Attorney’s Office were notified of the order.
What happened
Georgi Khevtsuriani v. Flanagan concerns a petition filed by Georgi Khevtsuriani seeking a court order related to expected detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He requested relief under the habeas statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, although he was not in custody when he filed the petition.
The court said it must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear the case—before considering Khevtsuriani’s claims. The court noted that Khevtsuriani had to allege facts showing that he was entitled to ask the court to resolve the dispute.
The court ordered Khevtsuriani to show cause no later than October 23, 2025, why the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Judge John P. Cronan did not decide the requested relief or the merits of the claims in this order.
The detailed version
- Khevtsuriani v. Flanagan · No. 1:25-cv-08562
- John Cronan
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
On October 15, 2025, Georgi Khevtsuriani filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint. He expected to be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but the opinion states that he was not in custody when he filed the petition. He asked the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus and to grant relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Jurisdiction issue
The court explained that it must examine subject matter jurisdiction before adjudicating the claims. Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court stated that the party invoking federal jurisdiction must clearly allege facts showing that he is a proper party to ask the court to resolve the dispute.
Order
The court ordered Khevtsuriani to show cause no later than October 23, 2025, why the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to notify the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and Chief Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher that the order had been issued. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed the case or decide the merits of Khevtsuriani’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.