the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that these guidelines had every indication of being a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of...statutory responsibilities and that its replacement of Congress's statutory mandates with concerns of equity and race is extralegal...[and] plainly outside the bounds of the power conferred by the INA . (5) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully refused to comply with the detention mandate set forth in section 241(a)(2) of such Act, requiring that an alien ordered removed shall [be] detain[ed] during the removal period . Instead of complying with this mandate, Alejandro N. Mayorkas issued Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Laws , which instructs DHS officials that the fact an individual is a removable noncitizen...should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them and that DHS personnel should not rely on the fact of conviction...alone , even with respect to aliens subject to mandatory detention and removal pursuant to section 241(a) of such Act. (6) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully exceeded his parole authority set forth in section 212(d)(5)(A) of such Act that permits parole to be granted only on a case-by-case basis , temporarily, and for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit , in that: (A) Alejandro N. Mayorkas paroled aliens en masse in order to release them from mandatory detention, despite the fact that, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in Texas v. Biden , 20 F.4th 928 (2021), parol[ing] every alien [DHS] cannot detain is the opposite of the case-by-case basis determinations required by law and DHS’s pretended power to parole aliens while ignoring the limitations Congress imposed on the parole power [is] not non enforcement