Tengim Donatus Chafie v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by an alien subject to a final order of removal who was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The court denied the petition, holding that the detention was lawful during the removal period and that it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying credible fear determination.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that once an order of removal becomes final, the statutory basis for detention shifts from 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225/1226 to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Under § 1231(a)(2)(A), detention is mandatory during the removal period. The court correctly noted that the petitioner had not yet exhausted the presumptively reasonable six-month period established in Zadvydas v. Davis, meaning the detention was currently lawful. Furthermore, the court correctly applied Thuraissigiam to dismiss the collateral attack on the credible fear determination, as the Supreme Court held that district courts lack habeas jurisdiction to review such determinations in expedited removal proceedings. The decision follows directly from the cited statutes and case law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly distinguishes the statutory basis for detention based on the finality of the removal order. It accurately applies the jurisdictional bar from Thuraissigiam to the specific claim regarding the credible fear determination. It correctly applies the Zadvydas framework to the current status of the detention. The footnote regarding Rule 11 is a procedural admonition that does not affect the substantive ruling.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TENGIM DONATUS CHAFIE, Case No.: 3:26-cv-4624-CAB-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 13 v. A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Tengim Donatus Chafie has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Having reviewed the Petition and 19 Respondents’ return, [Doc. No. 5],1 the Court DENIES the Petition. 20 Petitioner is a citizen and national of Cameroon who entered the United States 21 without being admitted or paroled on October 17, 2025. [Doc. No. 5 at 2.] He was detained 22 and issued a Notice to Appear, initiating removal proceedings against him. [Id.] On July 9, 23 2026, an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner removed to Cameroon. [Id.] 24 Petitioner did not timely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and so as of 25 August 10, 2026, he is subject to a final order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(c) (specifying 26 27 28 || that an IJ’s order of removal becomes final “[u]pon expiration of the time allotted for an 2 || appeal if the respondent does not file an appeal within that time’’).” 3 As such, Petitioner is lawfully detained subject to the removal period and detention 4 || provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1231, not 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 or 1226. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A) 5 ||(“During the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”); 8 C.F.R. 6 || § 1241.1(c). Should Petitioner’s detention continue beyond the presumptively reasonable 7 six-month period identified in Zadvydas vy. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), he may file an 8 ||amended petition with the Court. 9 To the extent Petitioner seeks review of his credible fear determination, this Court 10 |}is without habeas jurisdiction to provide such relief. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. 11 || Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 119 (2020). 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition. 13 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 14 Itis SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: September 3, 2026 6 (GE— 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ig United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 || ——___———— 25 ? The Court is deeply concerned that this Petition was filed three days after Petitioner’s order of removal 26 || became final, yet does not mention that fact or otherwise argue why detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is unlawful. The Court reminds Petitioner’s counsel of her Rule 11 and other ethical obligations to ensure 27 || that representations to the Court have evidentiary support and are based on legal arguments supported by 8 existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. E.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.