Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Amit Amit, a pro se federal immigration detainee from India, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order in the Eastern District of California. He challenged his ongoing detention, arguing that being held without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. He also asked the court to appoint counsel. Respondents answered that he was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) while his removal proceedings were pending.
According to the record recited by the court, Petitioner entered the United States on May 11, 2023. Immigration officials encountered him, processed him for removal with a Notice to Appear, and released him on his own recognizance because of a lack of detention space. He was arrested for driving under the influence on March 9, 2026, and later charged. On July 16, 2026, he reported to the ICE office as his release conditions required, and ICE arrested him, citing the recent DUI arrest and an asserted violation of his release conditions. A footnote observes that the I-286 Notice of Custody Determination was not issued until August 6, 2026, about three weeks after the arrest. He is held at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California.
An immigration judge ordered him removed on September 23, 2026. Respondents reported on October 26, 2026, after confirming with EOIR staff, that no appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals had been filed. The court's own check of EOIR's automated case information showed the same. Respondents requested no hearing or further briefing and Petitioner filed no reply, so the court decided the petition on the existing record.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. The thirty-day appeal period passed without an appeal, so the removal order became final under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.38(b)(2) and 1241.1(c). Petitioner's detention is therefore governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), which requires detention during the ninety-day removal period that begins when the order becomes administratively final. The court relied on an earlier Eastern District decision that denied habeas relief to a petitioner who did not appeal the immigration judge's ruling.
Citing authority that a petition challenging § 1226 detention is rendered moot when detention authority shifts to § 1231, the court expressly declined to decide whether the initial detention was governed by § 1226(a) or whether it violated due process. The order therefore makes no finding on the merits of the pre-deprivation notice and hearing claim. It also does not address detention beyond the ninety-day removal period.
On the remaining matters, the court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot and denied the motion to appoint counsel. It reasoned that, because detention is mandatory under § 1231(a)(2) and habeas relief was denied, the interests of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) did not require appointment. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- An unappealed immigration judge removal order becomes final when the thirty-day appeal period expires, and that finality triggers the removal period under § 1231.
- Once a removal order is final, detention is governed by § 1231(a)(2), which requires detention during the ninety-day removal period, rather than by § 1226(a).
- A habeas challenge to detention under § 1226 can be rendered moot when detention authority shifts to § 1231, and this court therefore did not reach the due process claim about the initial detention.
- The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot and denied appointed counsel because the interests of justice did not require it, given mandatory detention and denial of habeas relief.
- The order is an unreported district court ruling, so it carries persuasive weight at most, and it does not decide any challenge to detention after the removal period.
Why It Matters
The order shows how quickly a petitioner's posture can change in immigration habeas litigation. A detainee who challenges pre-order detention may lose the challenge if the removal order becomes final during the case, especially when no appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals is filed. The court treated the shift to § 1231 as dispositive and stopped short of evaluating whether the initial arrest and custody process complied with due process.
Because the opinion is brief, unreported and decided on an undisputed record, it should be read narrowly. It does not hold that the earlier detention was lawful, and it does not address any claim that might arise if the removal period ends without removal. The case is closed, so those questions remain open for any future proceeding.