## Facts

- Seventeen Chinese nationals of Uighur ethnicity were detained at Guantánamo Bay after fleeing China, traveling to Afghanistan, and later being transferred to U.S. custody from Pakistan.
- They were initially classified as “enemy combatants” based on allegations that their camp was connected to the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), viewed as associated with al Qaeda or the Taliban.
- After the D.C. Circuit found insufficient evidence tying ETIM to al Qaeda or the Taliban in related litigation, the government determined it had no materially different evidence against these petitioners and concluded they were not lawfully detainable as enemy combatants.
- The petitioners could not be repatriated to China due to feared persecution, and no third country had agreed to accept them at the time.
- Petitioners sought habeas relief in federal district court, requesting an order requiring the government to bring them to the United States and release them.
- The district court ordered the government to transport the petitioners to the United States and release them domestically.
- The government appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to compel admission of aliens into the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal habeas court may order Guantánamo detainees, no longer deemed enemy combatants, to be brought to and released within the United States.
2. Whether the constitutional habeas privilege recognized for Guantánamo detainees includes authority to override the political branches’ control over alien admission.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s order requiring transport to, and release within, the United States.
- The court held that, absent specific authorization from a statute, treaty, or the Constitution, federal courts may not compel the Executive to admit aliens into the United States as a habeas remedy.
- The court concluded that the political branches retain primary authority over admission and exclusion decisions, and habeas “release” does not entail judicial power to mandate domestic entry.

## Legal Principles

- Control over the admission and exclusion of aliens is committed to Congress and the Executive; courts may not order admission without express legal authorization.
- The habeas remedy for unlawful detention does not necessarily include judicial authority to dictate the place of release when doing so would require domestic admission of aliens.
- Separation-of-powers limits restrict habeas courts from issuing remedies that intrude on immigration policy and foreign-relations judgments reserved to the political branches.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that, even where Guantánamo detainees are no longer lawfully held as enemy combatants, a federal habeas court lacks authority to order their admission and release into the United States without explicit authorization from the political branches.


Kiyemba v. Obama (Kiyemba I), 555 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2009)