You, Xiu Qing, aka Yu, Xian Chin, Plaintiffv.Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as New York Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Steve Ahrendt, in his capacity as Warden of New Jersey Bergen County Jail; and Michael Saudino, in his capacity as Sheriff of Bergen County, NJ, RespondentsOPINIONOn June 14, 2018, Petitioner, Xiu Qing You, a Chinese national, filed a petition for habeas coipus following his arrest and detention pursuant to a final order of removal. See First Am. Pet., ECF No. 5. By order to show cause hand-delivered to the Court on June 16. 2018, Petitioner sought a temporary stay of removal, and, subsequently, Pet. Reply, ECF No. 16, release from custody. At a show cause hearing on June 20, 2018, see Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 11, the Court issued an oral order granting the requested relief pending the resolution of the habeas petition, Order of Release. ECF No. 17. The Court issues this opinion to provide its reasons for granting Petitioner’s requests.1 BACKGROUNDPetitioner is a 39-year-old husband to a United States citizen. with whom he has two young children. Petitioner first arrived in the United States in January 2000 without valid entry documents. First Am. Pet.15; Syed Decl.5, ECF No. 15. He was paroled into the United States, detained, and issued a notice to appear before an immigration judge. First Am. Pet.15; id., Ex. O; Syed Decl.6.2 On April 7, 2000, Petitioner was released from detention on a $3,000 bond. Syed Decl.7. On December 13, 2000, an immigration judge ordered him removed to China. First Am. Pet.16; Syed Decl.8. Petitioner appealed, but, on November 12, 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the immigration judge’s decision. First Am. Pet.16; Syed Decl.8. Nevertheless, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) did not execute the removal order.In 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, which the BIA denied as untimely. Syed Decl.9. In 2010, the BIA denied a second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred. Id. In 2016, the BIA denied a third motion to reopen. Id.While his struggles with the immigration system were ongoing, Petitioner began a family in the United States. In 2007, Petitioner married Yumei Chen in a traditional Chinese ceremony. First Am. Pet.17. In 2012, the couple had their first child, a daughter. Id.18. In 2013, the couple legally registered their marriage in New York City. Id.17. At that time, Petitioner’s wife was a legal permanent resident. Id. In 2014, the couple had a second child, a son. Id.18.In 2015, Petitioner’s wife became a U.S. citizen and filed an I-130 petition to classify Petitioner as her immediate relative. Id.20. Petitioner filed an I-485 application for an adjustment of status to legal permanent resident. Id. Petitioner received a notice scheduling his I-485 interview-colloquially, a “green card” interview-for May 23, 2018. First Am. Pet., Ex. N.On May 23, 2018, Petitioner and his wife appeared at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) offices for the I-485 interview. First Am. Pet.24. At the interview, the couple was questioned about their relationship. Id.25. But, before being questioned on his I-485 petition, ICE officers arrested Petitioner pursuant to the 2002 order of removal. Id. Petitioner remained in the custody of ICE, which, prior to this Court’s order releasing Petitioner, intended to deport him no later than July 1, 2018. Syed Decl.13.Later on the same day, USCIS granted the I-130 petition, First Am. Pet., Ex. L, but denied Petitioner’s I-485 application, First Am. Pet., Ex. O. USCIS found that Petitioner was eligible for an adjustment of status, but concluded that his entry into the United States without documentation, failure to depart the country, unlawful presence, and employment were adverse factors that counseled against an exercise of discretion in favor of adjustment of status. Id. at 2.Petitioner has since filed a motion to reopen the adjustment of status decision, filed for a stay of removal with the BIA, and filed a fourth motion to reopen his removal proceedings with the BIA. First Am. Pet.
33, 40. Additionally, on June 14, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition arguing that his arrest and detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and related regulations, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See generally id.Specifically, Petitioner argues that, under the INA and the Constitution, he should have been afforded notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a determination that he was either dangerous or a flight risk before being arrested and detained on May 23, 2018. Id.
