## Facts

- Hany Mahmoud Kiareldeen, a Palestinian national, entered the United States in 1990 on a student visa and later overstayed.
- He married a U.S. citizen in 1997, who filed an immigrant relative petition to support his application to adjust status.
- In March 1998, INS and FBI agents arrested him and initiated removal proceedings based on visa overstay; he had not been charged with any criminal offense.
- In removal proceedings, he conceded removability but sought discretionary adjustment of status and asylum/withholding of removal.
- The government opposed relief and sought continued detention on national security grounds, relying primarily on classified information not disclosed to Kiareldeen.
- The government presented the classified material ex parte and in camera to the immigration judge and provided no substantiating evidence in open court.
- The immigration judge granted adjustment of status and ordered release on bond; the government appealed and obtained a stay, keeping Kiareldeen detained.
- By July 1999, the FBI closed its criminal investigation and indicated it did not plan to reopen it absent new information.
- Kiareldeen filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his continued detention as unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether continued immigration detention justified by undisclosed classified evidence, presented ex parte and in camera, violates Fifth Amendment due process by denying meaningful notice and an opportunity to rebut.
2. Whether continued detention based on uncorroborated hearsay accusations—despite rebuttal and an ended criminal investigation—is arbitrary and violates due process.
3. Whether reliance on allegations about political associations to support detention violates the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The district court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered Kiareldeen released from INS custody.
- The court held that reliance on undisclosed classified evidence to justify detention violated due process because it denied meaningful notice and a fair opportunity to confront and rebut the allegations.
- The court held that continued detention based on uncorroborated hearsay and a record lacking reliable, corroborated support was arbitrary and violated due process.
- The court did not reach the First Amendment claim because relief was warranted on due process grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Fifth Amendment due process in immigration detention requires meaningful notice of the factual basis for detention and a meaningful opportunity to respond.
- Detention decisions resting primarily on evidence withheld from the detainee, without an adequate opportunity to contest the allegations, fail basic requirements of fair procedure.
- Even in civil immigration custody, the government must provide a rational, evidence-based justification; detention grounded in uncorroborated hearsay and questionable reliability may be unconstitutional.
- Federal courts may exercise habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review the constitutionality of immigration detention practices.

## Conclusion

The court ordered release because continued immigration detention based on secret, undisclosed classified allegations and unreliable, uncorroborated hearsay denied Kiareldeen meaningful notice and a fair chance to rebut the government’s claims, violating due process.


Kiareldeen v. Reno, 71 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D.N.J. 1999)