Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Abdelouahab Boucherafa, described by the court as a federal immigration detainee, filed a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility. The matter was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 22, 2026, the court issued a no-transfer order providing that the warden could not transfer Boucherafa to another detention center outside the judicial district pending further court order. The restriction therefore concerned where Boucherafa could be detained while the federal action remained subject to further court direction.
The warden later moved to dissolve that restriction. In support, the warden submitted evidence that an immigration judge ordered Boucherafa removed to Algeria on April 24, 2026, and that the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal on September 28, 2026. Boucherafa had 30 days to petition for review of the BIA ruling. The court stated that neither his EOIR Case Information Page nor the Ninth Circuit's case-search webpage reflected that he had done so as of the order. In a footnote, the court took judicial notice of the EOIR case information under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)-(c) and stated that searches for 'Boucherafa' and 'Abdelouahab' on the Ninth Circuit's advanced case-search page returned no results.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that the Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires the government to remove a noncitizen during the 90-day removal period following entry of a final removal order. Drawing on Avilez v. Garland, it described the statutory triggers for that period, including the date an order becomes administratively final, the date of a court's final order when judicial review and a Ninth Circuit stay are involved, or the date of release from criminal detention or confinement. It then cited Ocampo v. Holder for the rule that a removal order becomes final upon the earlier of a BIA determination affirming the order or expiration of the deadline to seek BIA review.
Because it appeared that Boucherafa had not sought review of the BIA's decision, the court found his removal order administratively final and concluded that his detention had shifted to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)-(2). To allow the government to effectuate its statutory mandate, the court granted the warden's motion and dissolved the no-transfer order. The ruling addressed that transfer restriction; it did not itself order Boucherafa's removal or state a disposition of the underlying habeas petition. Nor did the order identify a particular destination or direct that a transfer occur by a specified date.
Key Takeaways
- The warden, not Boucherafa, was the party seeking dissolution of the court's no-transfer order.
- The court relied on the BIA's September 28, 2026 dismissal and the apparent absence of a later petition for review in finding administrative finality.
- The court concluded that detention authority had shifted to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)-(2).
- The granted relief removed the existing restriction on transfers outside the judicial district so the government could effectuate its statutory mandate.
- The order did not expressly resolve the merits of Boucherafa's underlying § 2241 habeas petition.
Why It Matters
The decision ties dissolution of a district-court transfer restriction to the administrative finality of a removal order and the resulting statutory detention framework. It shows the court treating the apparent lack of judicial review, checked against EOIR and Ninth Circuit records as of its writing, as significant to whether the government could proceed under § 1231. The court's reasoning connects the BIA's dismissal and the absence of a reflected petition for review to the statutory removal framework, rather than simply treating the earlier removal order as sufficient by itself.
The ruling's scope remains specific: it grants the warden's motion concerning the June 22 no-transfer order. It should not be read as a separate judicial order directing removal or as a final adjudication of claims the order does not address. The order also does not announce a general rule that every no-transfer restriction must end after administrative finality; its stated basis is the record and statutory analysis presented in this case.