Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-25618-BLOOM/Elfenbein
MOHAMMAD ABDELRAHMAN SAMHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, in her official capacity;
TODD LYONS, Acting Director and Senior Official
Performing the Duties of the Director of ICE, in his
official capacity; GARRETT RIPA, Field Office
Director for ICE ERO Miami, in his official
capacity; WARDEN OF KROME SPC, in his/her official
capacity, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents.
_________________________/
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On December
1, 2025, Petitioner Mohammad Abdelrahman Samhan (“Petitioner”) filed a Verified Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
ECF No. [1]. On December 3, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the
Petition should not be granted. ECF No. [5]. The Government filed a Response, ECF No. [8], to
which Petitioner filed a Reply. ECF No. [9].
The parties agree on the following facts: Petitioner was issued a final order of removal on
December 12, 2005 and has been released on an Order of Supervision (“OSUP”) since April 10,
2006. ECF Nos. [1] ¶ 20; [8] at 3. On November 20, 2025, during a scheduled check-in with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the Government revoked Petitioner’s OSUP and
Case 1:25-cv-25618-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2025 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 25-cv-25618-BLOOM/Elfenbein
2
detained him. ECF Nos. [1] ¶ 3; [8] at 4. Petitioner has been detained in Krome North Service
Center awaiting removal since then. ECF Nos. [1] ¶ 3, [8] at 4.
Petitioner states that “at no time following Petitioner’s arrest did ICE explain why it
revoked Petitioner’s order of supervision or give him an opportunity to respond to those reasons.”
ECF No. [1] ¶ 29. The Government argues that, because Petitioner’s revocation occurred pursuant
to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2), it was not required to give Petitioner notice or an interview. ECF No. [8]
at 8. However, the Government states that Petitioner “was informed that his OSUP was revoked
to affect his removal from the United States and was provided an opportunity to ask questions
regarding the revocation of release.” Id. at 4. The Government also argues that Petitioner “was
given notice by way of the Notice of Revocation of Release.” Id. at 7. However, the Government’s
description of the procedures which Petitioner was afforded fall short of those outlined in the
Notice of Revocation of Release (“Notice”), which the Government issued to Petitioner and
attached to its Response. The Notice states:
You will promptly be afforded an informal interview at which you will be given
the opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation and to provide evidence
to demonstrate that your removal is unlikely. If you are not released following the
informal interview, you will receive notification of a new review, which will occur
within approximately three months from the date of this notice.
ECF No. [8-1] at 72.
At no point in the Response does the Government state that Petitioner was given “the
opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation and to provide evidence to demonstrate
that your removal is unlikely[,]” to which he was entitled under the Notice signed by the Assistant
Field Office Director. Id. Therefore, on the basis of the pleadings, it appears that the Government
did not comply with its own stated procedures.
“The Eleventh Circuit has consistently held that even where the statutory framework grants
Case 1:25-cv-25618-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2025 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 25-cv-25618-BLOOM/Elfenbein
3
agency discretion, courts have jurisdiction to review whether an agency adhered to its own
regulations and procedures.” Barrios v. Ripa, No. 25-cv-22644, 2025 WL 2280485, at *5 (S.D.
Fla. Aug. 8, 2025) (citing Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 775 F.3d 1255,
1262 (11th Cir. 2014)). In Kurapati, the Eleventh Circuit held that, although, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the district court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review any ‘decision or
action of . . . the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this
subchapter to be in the discretion of . . . the Secretary of Homeland Security[,]’” USCIS’s failure
to follow the correct procedure in revoking I-140 petitions “was not within USCIS’s discretion.
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) thus does not prevent judicial review of the conduct of the administrative
proceedings.” 775 F.3d at 1262 (internal citations omitted). Courts in this district have applied this
reasoning to cases involving the revocation of Orders of Supervision, “finding a distinction
between the decision to revoke an OSUP and a failure to follow procedures.” Ripa, 2025 WL
2280485, at *5; Grigorian v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-22914, 2025 WL 1895479, at *3-5 (S.D. Fla. July
8, 2025). The Court finds these cases persuasive and, accordingly, has jurisdiction to determine
whether or not the Government “follow[ed] its own binding regulations.” Kurapati, 775 F.3d at
1262 (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Bus. Regulation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 768 F.2d 1248, 1257 n. 11
(11th 	Cir. 	1985), abrogated 	on 	other 	grounds 	by Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish 	Band 	of
Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (2012)).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, on or before December 29, 2025,
the Government shall SHOW CAUSE as to why Petitioner was not told why his order of
supervision was revoked or given an opportunity to respond to those reasons, despite the Notice
of Revocation of Release, ECF No. [8-1] at 72, stating that he would be given such notice and
opportunity to be heard.
Case 1:25-cv-25618-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2025 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 25-cv-25618-BLOOM/Elfenbein
4
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 22, 2025.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 1:25-cv-25618-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2025 Page 4 of 4