Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Diallo Mamadou Hady, a citizen and national of Guinea, entered the United States in February 2024 and was released on parole the following day. He applied for political asylum, and his request for relief from removal remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Immigration officials detained Hady when he appeared for a supervision appointment on July 11, 2025. Proceeding without counsel, he petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention violated his constitutional rights. The federal respondents sought dismissal or summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required his detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Hady’s detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to him without an individualized assessment, notice, or an opportunity to be heard, violated procedural due process. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Hady had a protected liberty interest and that all three factors favored him. He had been in the country for more than two years, had previously been paroled, and was pursuing relief from removal, while the respondents identified neither an available procedure for reviewing his detention nor a flight-risk, public-danger, or other weighty governmental justification.
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, granted the habeas petition in part, and ordered Hady released within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those imposed before his detention. It also prohibited his removal or transfer under the existing detention and barred re-detention during the removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, after a hearing, that the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that Hady is a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) violated procedural due process as applied to Hady because he received no individualized assessment, notice, or opportunity to be heard.
- The absence of any identified review process or asserted flight-risk, public-safety, or comparable governmental interest caused all three Mathews factors to favor Hady.
- The remedy was release, not a bond hearing under § 1226(a), because the respondents did not contend that § 1226(a) applied and acknowledged no process for Hady to await.
- Any re-detention during the removal proceedings requires a pre-detention hearing and clear-and-convincing proof that Hady presents a flight risk or danger to the community.
Why It Matters
The decision recognizes an as-applied procedural due-process limit on immigration detention even where § 1225(b)(2) governs. It treats prolonged detention without any individualized procedure as constitutionally deficient when the government offers no specific justification based on flight risk, dangerousness, or another substantial interest.
The order also illustrates the breadth of habeas relief available for unlawful executive detention. Beyond directing prompt release, the court imposed notice and safe-transit requirements, ordered the return of identification documents, and established procedural protections against re-detention while Hady’s removal proceedings remain pending.