Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tekle Seare, held at the Golden State Annex, petitioned for habeas relief from immigration detention. During the case, the government established that his removal order became administratively final on May 2, 2026. That changed the governing detention statute and the timing of any claim that removal was not reasonably foreseeable.
Seare argued that continued detention was unlawful and sought release or a bond hearing. The government moved to dismiss, relying on 8 U.S.C. section 1231, which governs custody after a removal order becomes final.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston denied the petition and granted dismissal. Section 1231(a)(2) requires detention during the statutory 90-day removal period. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, custody may continue beyond 90 days for the time reasonably necessary to accomplish removal, with six months treated as presumptively reasonable.
Because fewer than six months had passed since Seare’s order became final, a Zadvydas claim was premature. After six months, a detainee must initially provide good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court withdrew its earlier transfer and removal restrictions and closed the case.
Key Takeaways
- The date a removal order becomes administratively final determines which immigration-detention statute applies.
- Section 1231 mandates custody during the 90-day removal period.
- Zadvydas generally treats six months of post-order detention as presumptively reasonable.
- A challenge based on inability to complete removal is premature before that benchmark absent a different legal defect.
Why It Matters
Immigration counsel should calculate detention timelines from the legally operative final-order date and distinguish pre-final-order bond claims from post-order Zadvydas claims. Filing under the wrong statutory framework can lead to dismissal even when detention has already lasted for months. Once the six-month point approaches, practitioners should assemble country-specific removal evidence and facts showing that removal is not realistically foreseeable.