Abdivaitulu v. Noem et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
RAKHMONALI A., 1 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-cv-357
§
KRISTI NOEM, et al., 	§
in their official capacities, 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint
for Emergency Injunctive Relief” (Dkt. No. 1) (“Petition”) and Respondents’ “Response to
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 11)
(“MSJ”). For the following reasons, the Court should deny the Petition.
Petitioner is detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026), and, as pleaded, Petitioner’s constitutional claims are not
viable. The Supreme Court’s cases “establish only that aliens receive constitutional
protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed
substantial connections with this country.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259,
271 (1990) (emphasis added). The problem lies in that the first part—the question of whether
“an alien [] has effected an entry into the United States,” which, if answered in the
affirmative, changes “the legal circumstances” for aliens regardless of “whether their
presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678, 693 (2001). Because the “entry fiction” doctrine applies to aliens who, like Petitioner,
Dkt. No. 11-1 at 2; Dkt. No. 1 at 4, are “allowed within its borders pending a determination
of admissibility” and are thus “legally considered to be detained at the border and hence as
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will refer to the petitioner
only by first name and last initial.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:25-cv-00357 Document 14 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
never having effected entry into the country,” there is no substantive due process violation
absent evidence that the detention “is imposed for the purpose of punishment.” Gisbert v.
U.S. Attorney General, 988 F.2d 1437, 1440-41 (5th Cir. 1993). And if the entry fiction
applies to a petitioner, that petitioner is “entitled only to those due process rights as are
provided by law,” which is to say “by Congress”—by statute. Id. at 1442-43. Because the
Court finds no purpose to punish Petitioner, Petitioner possesses no extra-statutory due
process rights that have been violated here.
It is therefore recommended that the Court (1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1), (2)
and DENY the MSJ (Dkt. No. 11) as moot, and (3) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close the
case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an
objection, a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on
appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C.,
875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on May 8, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00357 Document 14 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2