Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Liu Shengen, a federal immigration detainee, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. On September 22, 2026, the Court issued a no-transfer order prohibiting his removal from the judicial district.
Respondent subsequently moved to lift that order, attaching a travel document issued by the Chinese Embassy on September 4, 2026, authorizing Petitioner’s return to China within three months of issuance. Respondent represented it was ready, able, and willing to remove Petitioner but for the Court’s order. Petitioner opposed the motion, requesting the order remain in place until a definite removal date was set, but offered no substantive factual or legal basis for maintaining the restriction. The record reflects Petitioner is subject to a final expedited removal order dated September 13, 2019, and there is no evidence his removal proceedings have been reopened.
The operative document is a federal trial-court order. The distinction between a final order and a magistrate judge’s recommendation matters: The order lifts a litigation-preservation measure; it does not decide the habeas petition or order dismissal. The parties must report their merits positions, or stipulate to dismissal if removal moots the case, by December 7, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted Respondent’s request to lift the no-transfer order. The Magistrate Judge found Respondent’s showing sufficient because Petitioner appears subject to a final expedited removal order and the government has obtained a valid travel document with a three-month validity window expiring in less than six weeks.
The Court noted Respondent’s representation of imminent removal was a departure from its prior position that Petitioner was subject to mandatory pre-removal detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), but concluded the current evidence warranted lifting the stay. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report or stipulation of dismissal by December 7, 2026, and reminded Respondent of its obligation to file a Notice of Changed Circumstances if Petitioner’s custody status changes.
The order lifts a litigation-preservation measure; it does not decide the habeas petition or order dismissal. The parties must report their merits positions, or stipulate to dismissal if removal moots the case, by December 7, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A no-transfer order in a habeas case may be lifted when the government demonstrates a valid travel document and imminent removal within a defined timeframe.
- The existence of a final expedited removal order (2019) and a current embassy travel document (2026) outweighed the petitioner’s unspecified desire for a definite removal date.
- The Court flagged an inconsistency in the government’s legal theory—shifting from mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1) to removal under § 1231(a)(6)—but did not resolve it.
- The case remains pending on the merits; the parties must report on resolution or mootness by December 7, 2026.
- Removal of the petitioner would moot the habeas petition seeking release from detention under Ninth Circuit precedent (Abdala v. I.N.S.).
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the tension between a detainee’s interest in litigating habeas claims within the district and the government’s statutory authority to execute final removal orders.
By lifting the stay based on the imminent expiration of the travel document, the Court prioritized the government’s operational timeline over the petitioner’s unparticularized objection. The decision leaves the underlying habeas petition unresolved and highlights a potential discrepancy in the government’s cited detention authority—§ 1225(b)(1) (expedited removal) versus § 1231(a)(6) (post-order detention)—which may bear on the merits if the case is not mooted by removal.
For practitioners, the immediate lesson is to track both the legal standard and the precise procedural remedy. Deadlines, notice requirements, burdens of proof, and whether relief is recommended or already operative can determine the next filing and the client’s present custody or litigation status.