Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joassaint Pitherson, a Haitian citizen, entered the United States on humanitarian parole. After his parole ended, an immigration judge ordered him removed when he did not attend a hearing. His motion to reopen and later appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals were unsuccessful, making the removal order final. Immigration officers then arrested and detained him.
Pitherson filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking a custody redetermination and contending that his arrest without adequate notice violated due process and federal law. At the time of the ruling, less than a month had passed since the removal order became final.
The Court’s Holding
The Southern District of California denied the petition and closed the case. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), the government must detain a noncitizen during the 90-day removal period following a final removal order. Because Pitherson was still within that initial period, his detention was mandatory and he was not entitled to the custody redetermination he requested.
The court distinguished the framework from Zadvydas v. Davis, which addresses detention beyond the statutory removal period. Zadvydas treats six months as a presumptively reasonable period and later requires a detainee to give good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Pitherson’s detention had not approached that stage.
The arrest claim also failed. His humanitarian status had expired, the immigration judge had entered a removal order, the Board had rejected his appeal, and officers used an administrative warrant. Those circumstances supplied notice and a lawful basis for arrest. The government’s motion concerning transfer was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Detention is mandatory during the initial 90-day removal period under section 1231(a).
- The Zadvydas limits on prolonged post-removal detention do not create an immediate right to release or a bond hearing soon after a removal order becomes final.
- The timeline matters: finality of the removal order determines when the statutory removal period begins.
- An administrative warrant and the completed removal proceedings defeated the petitioner’s claim that the arrest lacked notice or authority.
Why It Matters
Immigration habeas counsel should identify the governing detention statute and calculate the removal-period timeline before filing. Arguments designed for prolonged detention are unlikely to succeed while detention remains mandatory under the initial statutory period.
The decision does not authorize indefinite detention. If removal later becomes unlikely and detention extends beyond the presumptively reasonable period, the factual and legal analysis can change under Zadvydas.