Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christian Bullard is a citizen of the Bahamas who first entered the United States in 2007 on a B2 visa that was set to expire on June 20, 2008. The court noted that it did not appear he sought further immigration relief after the visa expired. In November 2025, he presented himself at the Miami Deferred Inspection Office to request an I-94 form so he could begin adjusting his status. Because of his criminal history, which includes arrests from 2011 to early 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued an administrative warrant and arrested him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At a March 2026 bond hearing, an immigration judge denied bond on a finding that he was a danger to the community.
In August 2026, Bullard was ordered removed to the Bahamas, and he waived his right to appeal. On the records the parties submitted, he did not later appeal and has not sought to reopen his removal proceedings. He had filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. After the removal order, his counsel asked the court to withhold ruling until September 4, 2026 so an amended petition could be filed, and the court indicated it would wait until September 15, 2026. As of the November 2, 2026 order, no amended petition had been filed and no extension had been requested, so the court ruled on the existing petition. The order does not describe the petition's specific claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) governs the detention of noncitizens who have been ordered removed, and that § 1231(a)(2) requires the government to detain a person for up to 90 days after a final order of removal. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(b), a removal order becomes final upon waiver of appeal. Because Bullard waived appeal and sought no further relief, the court found that his order became administratively final on August 19, 2026. The government is therefore authorized to detain him through at least November 17, 2026 to carry out his removal.
The court relied on Khotesouvan v. Morones, 386 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 2004), which held that detention during the 90-day removal period under § 1231(a)(2)(A) passes constitutional scrutiny. It also cited an Eastern District of California decision, Singh v. Cruz, which denied injunctive relief where the petitioner was still within the 90-day period. The court denied the petition without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case and enter judgment for Respondents. The brief order does not analyze detention beyond the 90-day period or revisit the earlier bond ruling under § 1226(a).
Key Takeaways
- A removal order becomes administratively final upon waiver of appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(b), which starts the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a).
- Under Ninth Circuit authority cited by the court, detention during the 90-day removal period satisfies constitutional scrutiny, so a habeas challenge filed within that window faces a difficult path.
- The order authorizes detention only through at least November 17, 2026; it does not decide whether detention past the 90-day period would be lawful.
- The court ruled on the original petition because no amended petition or extension request was filed after the court said it would wait until September 15, 2026.
- The denial is without prejudice, but the court also closed the case and entered judgment for Respondents, so the order itself does not say how any later challenge would proceed.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order and carries no precedential weight. It applies existing authority rather than announcing a new rule, and it is useful mainly as an example of how a court in the Eastern District of California treats habeas petitions filed during the 90-day removal period after a waived appeal.
The practical point is the timing. The court measured the removal period from the date the order became final through waiver of appeal, and it treated detention inside that period as authorized. The order leaves open what happens if Bullard remains detained after the 90-day period ends. The label 'without prejudice' signals that the denial was not a ruling on any later detention, but the order does not address any future filing, and the court did not discuss the details of the original petition's claims.