Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JUNIOR TAMAYO PEREZ, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 26-3334-JWL
)
MISTY MACKEY, Warden, )
Midwest Regional Reception Center; )
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, DHS; and )
DAVID VENTURELLA, Acting Director, ICE, )
)
Respondents. )
)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Acting pro se, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
in which he challenges his continued detention by immigration officials. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court denies the petition.
Petitioner, a native of Cuba, entered the United States in 2011 and became a lawful
permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, petitioner was convicted of aggravated battery, and
in 2017 an immigration court ordered petitioner’s removal, but petitioner was released on
an order of supervision after immigration officials determined that his removal in the near
future was unlikely. Immigration officials again detained petitioner on June 9, 2026, after
petitioner had again been arrested for aggravated battery, and he remains in custody in this
judicial district. Petitioner filed the instant action on September 8, 2026. After the Court
ordered petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be denied for failure to state
Case 5:26-cv-03334-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
a claim (based on the absence of any allegation of a violation of federal law), petitioner
filed a response clarifying his claim. Respondents have filed an answer, and petitioner has
filed a traverse, and the case is therefore ripe for ruling.
By his habeas petition, petitioner challenges his continued detention. To obtain
habeas corpus relief, petitioner must demonstrate that he is “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). This
Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction to consider the statutory and constitutional grounds
for immigration detention that are unrelated to a final order of removal. See Demore v.
Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517–18 (2003).
Petitioner claims that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates due
process; he claims that the Government’s refusal to release him constitutes an abuse of
discretion because he does not pose a danger or a flight risk; he questions the basis for his
detention; and he seeks his release from custody. As noted, however, petitioner is subject
to a final removal order, and he is therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231. Thus, any challenge to his detention is governed by the framework established in
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In that case, the Supreme Court held that although
an alien may not be detained indefinitely, the detention of an alien subject to a final order
of removal for up to six months is presumptively reasonable in view of the time required
to accomplish removal. See id. at 699-701. The Supreme Court further held that, beyond
that six-month period, if the alien shows that there is “no significant likelihood of removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence
sufficient to rebut that showing.” See id. at 701.
Case 5:26-cv-03334-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
This Court has consistently held that the six-month period under Zadvydas restarts
upon the re-detention of an alien who was previously released. See, e.g., Rustami v. Noem,
2025 WL 3760744, at *2 n.1 (D. Kan. Dec. 30, 2025) (Lungstrum, J.). Petitioner has been
detained for only four months, and therefore petitioner’s detention remains presumptively
reasonable under Zadvydas. Accordingly, any claim under Section 1231 fails. In addition,
as this Court has previously held, if a petitioner cannot satisfy the Supreme Court’s test
from Zadvydas, there is no due process violation except in an exceptional case. See S.E.C.
v. Olson, 2026 WL 1993217, at *3 (D. Kan. July 10, 2026) (Lungstrum, J.). Petitioner has
not shown any dilatory or bad faith conduct by the Government with respect to his removal;
nor has he shown exceptional circumstances in this case with respect to his detention or
removal, as he has been detained for only a few months and officials continue their efforts
to remove him. Accordingly, the Court denies the petition.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of October, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
/s/ John W. Lungstrum
Hon. John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-03334-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 3