M-Z-H-, an Afghan asylum seeker who supported the U.S. Mission was waiting outside of work when masked ICE agents surrounded his car. They did not know his name, country of origin, or provide a reason for arresting him.

Throughout M-Z-H-’s detention, the U.S. government offered shifting justifications for his arrest and incarceration. When forced to offer a legal justification in federal court, ICE's sole evidence was a hearsay declaration from an officer who had no personal knowledge of the alleged violation—evidence the court ultimately rejected as inadmissible. While M-Z-H- was detained, an ICE official even attempted to coerce him into signing a false confession, denying him access to counsel during the attempt.

M-Z-H- had complied diligently with every requirement of his release for nearly two years, but this case was never about a missed check-in. It was about whether ICE can jail first and invent a reason later.

The Court’s answer was definitive. Granting our habeas petition, it ordered M-Z-H-’s immediate release and barred ICE from re-detaining him without first providing a meaningful hearing before a neutral judge. This ruling affirms a fundamental shield against arbitrary power: once the government has released someone into our community, it cannot incarcerate them again without at least offering them an opportunity to be heard under the law.