Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tengim Donatus Chafie, the petitioner, filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, challenging his immigration detention. The case is captioned Tengim Donatus Chafie v. Christopher J. LaRose, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-4624-CAB-MMP, and the order was filed November 5, 2026 as Document No. 14. The court had previously denied Chafie's original petition on September 3, 2026, because he was subject to a final order of removal as of August 10, 2026 and was therefore lawfully detained within the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a).
In the amended petition, Chafie argued that his formerly untimely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals had been 'cured,' and that he therefore was not subject to detention under § 1231(a). The amended petition, however, did not attach any evidence of an accepted BIA appeal. Respondents countered that after the BIA rejected Chafie's appeal, he attempted to file a corrected notice of appeal on August 31, 2026, but that on September 23, 2026 the BIA deemed the filing untimely and summarily dismissed the appeal.
Alongside the amended petition, Chafie filed a motion to stay removal, listed in the order's caption as a separate request at [Doc. No. 10], which the court also denied.
The Court’s Holding
The court agreed with Respondents that Chafie remained subject to a final order of removal and was therefore detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). Applying Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the court stated that the presumptively reasonable six-month period for removal ends on February 10, 2026, as set out in the order. Because Chafie was still well within that six-month Zadvydas period, the court denied the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The court also disposed of Chafie's ancillary argument that the court must consider his detention prior to his final order of removal. A footnote to the order states that this argument is without any cited authority, citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682, and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i).
Finally, the caption of the order separately denies Chafie's motion to stay removal, [Doc. No. 10]. The order concludes 'It is SO ORDERED' and is dated November 5, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen subject to a final order of removal may lawfully be detained for the presumptively reasonable six-month removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
- An untimely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals that is summarily dismissed does not cure the finality of a removal order or provide a basis for habeas relief while the petitioner remains within the removal period.
- Habeas petitioners challenging immigration detention must attach evidence supporting their claims, such as documentation that the BIA accepted an appeal, rather than relying on unsupported assertions that procedural defects were cured.
- Arguments that a court must consider detention occurring before a final order of removal require citation to legal authority; unsupported arguments are rejected.
- The order denied both the amended habeas petition and the separate motion to stay removal, so each request required its own support.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Zadvydas framework to a habeas challenge to immigration detention, confirming that detention within the six-month presumptively reasonable period following a final removal order remains lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). It also illustrates that an unsuccessful attempt to cure an untimely BIA appeal does not undermine the finality of a removal order or justify habeas relief.
The order further underscores the evidentiary burden on habeas petitioners: claims about procedural developments in immigration proceedings must be supported by attached documentation, not mere assertion. For practitioners, the decision is a reminder that an amended petition and any accompanying motions, such as a motion to stay removal, must each be separately supported to obtain relief.