Ali v. DHS/ICE/Dept. of Justice

Background

Ilyas Ali, a citizen of Pakistan, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pending removal. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release and an order preventing the respondents from revoking his parole after release unless he violated its terms. Ali filed the petition on September 17, 2019, while detained at the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama. He was later moved to facilities in New Jersey and Louisiana.

Ali challenged his detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, arguing that his detention had lasted more than six months, that there was initial evidence he could not be removed in the foreseeable future, and that he had followed ICE’s instructions. The government moved to dismiss or transfer the case to the Northern District of Alabama. Ali did not file an opposition after the motion was served.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated Ali’s petition as a “core” detention petition because it challenged his present physical confinement. Relying on Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the court explained that such a petition generally must be filed in the district where the petitioner is confined and must name the immediate custodian—the person responsible for the facility—as the proper respondent. The court stated that this question is determined when the petition is filed, so Ali’s later transfers did not change the proper district.

Because Ali was detained in Alabama when he filed, the court concluded that the Northern District of Alabama was the proper district. The court rejected the argument that the case belonged in New York because ICE officials there had authority over Ali’s detention. It reasoned that the warden of the Etowah County Detention Center was Ali’s immediate physical custodian, even though the facility housed detainees under a contract with ICE.

Disposition

The court granted the government’s motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and ordered the action transferred to the Northern District of Alabama. It stated that transfer, rather than dismissal, served the interests of justice. The court did not decide the merits of Ali’s detention claims. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.