Hillary K. v. DHS-ICE
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:19-cv-02965
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Hillary K. v. DHS-ICE, Judge Schiltz denied both motions because the court lacked authority to block or interfere with removal.
Hillary K.’s requests to end the revocation of his supervised release and temporarily stop his removal were denied. The government remained able to execute his final removal order, and the court did not disturb its earlier order releasing him from detention subject to supervision.
What happened
In Hillary K. v. DHS-ICE, Hillary K. challenged his return to Kenya after immigration authorities took him back into custody. He asked the court to end the revocation of his supervised release and separately asked it to temporarily stop his removal.
The court said it could not consider either request because federal law bars district courts from reviewing claims arising from the government’s execution of a removal order. The court explained that its earlier order releasing Hillary from detention addressed only whether the government could continue detaining him; it did not invalidate or suspend his final removal order.
Judge Schiltz denied both motions. The court stated that Hillary had not identified a reason his removal was unlawful and that, even if he had, the court likely would not have jurisdiction to review that issue.
The detailed version
- Hillary K. v. DHS-ICE · No. 0:19-cv-02965
- Patrick Schiltz
- Sept. 15, 2020
Background
Hillary K., a citizen of Kenya, overstayed his student visa and was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on November 5, 2018. He conceded that he could be removed in immigration proceedings, and he became subject to a final removal order on December 31, 2019.
The case originally involved Hillary’s petition asking the court to order his release from detention while removal was pending. In July 2020, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez’s recommendation and ordered Hillary released subject to reasonable supervision conditions. That decision was based on the conclusion that continued detention had become unlawful under the rule discussed in Zadvydas v. Davis. It addressed the government’s authority to continue detaining Hillary, not the validity or enforceability of his removal order.
On September 9, 2020, Hillary filed a motion without a lawyer stating that he had been taken back into ICE custody and asking the court to intervene. On September 14, 2020, through counsel, he filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent the government from removing him to Kenya. He said he had been moved to an out-of-state detention center in preparation for removal, which was expected within a few days.
Court’s Analysis
The court treated both motions as requests for relief from the execution of Hillary’s final removal order. It relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which generally bars courts from hearing claims arising from the government’s decision or action to begin immigration proceedings, decide immigration cases, or execute removal orders.
The court concluded that both Hillary’s request to stop his removal and his request concerning his re-incarceration arose from the government’s decision to execute the removal order. The court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to decide those requests.
The court distinguished the earlier detention ruling. That ruling addressed whether Hillary could remain in custody pending removal after the detention period described in Zadvydas had passed and removal was not reasonably foreseeable. It did not affect the separate removal order, which remained valid and enforceable. The court also stated that Hillary had not identified a reason his removal was unlawful and that, even if he had, the district court likely would not have jurisdiction to review the legality of the removal decision.
Disposition
The court denied Hillary’s motion to terminate the revocation of release, identified as ECF No. 46, and denied his motion for a temporary restraining order, identified as ECF No. 49. The order did not state that either motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Judge Patrick J. Schiltz signed the order on September 15, 2020.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.