Hadi v. Rokosky

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NH
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Khalid Hamid Hadi,
Petitioner,
v.
Eric Rokosky,
Respondent.
No. CV-26-03485-PHX-JAT (DMF)
ORDER
Self-represented Petitioner Khalid Hamid Hadi, who is confined in the Eloy
Detention Center, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration
detention and paid the filing fee. The Court will dismiss the Petition and this action.
I. Petition
Petitioner is a citizen of Iran who entered the United States on June 22, 1998.
Petitioner alleges he was sentenced to prison for five years and, upon the expiration of his
sentence on October 31, 2025, was detained by immigration authorities.
On February 9, 2026, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed but granted
him Deferral of Removal under the Convention Against Torture and Cancellation of
Removal for Lawful Permanent Residents. Neither Petitioner nor the Department of
Homeland Security filed an appeal.1
1 Petitioner appears to claim his removal order became final on February 9, 2026.
However, because no appeal was filed, his removal order became final upon “the expiration
of the period in which [Petitioner was] permitted to seek review of such order by the Board
of Immigration Appeals.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47). Therefore, Petitioner’s removal order
became final on March 12, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-03485-JAT--DMF Document 3 Filed 05/26/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioner claims his prolonged detention is a violation of his Fifth Amendment right
to due process and that there is no significant probability of his removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future. Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody.
II. Failure to State a Claim
The Court must dismiss Petitioner’s claims regarding his continued detention.
“[W]hen an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the
United States within a period of 90 days.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). During the 90-day
removal period, continued detention is mandatory. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). After the 90-
day removal period, the Attorney General has discretionary authority to detain certain
aliens or to release them under an order of supervision. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). However,
an alien’s detention for six months following the beginning of the removal period is
“presumptively reasonable.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). “[A]n alien
ordered removed whose removal is not reasonably foreseeable cannot raise a colorable
claim for release under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment until at least 90
days of detention [under § 1231(a)(2)] have passed.” Khotesouvan v. Morones, 386 F.3d
1298, 1299 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because Petitioner filed his § 2241 Petition during the 90-day removal period, his
detention is mandatory and the Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice. Id. at
1301 (“Because petitioners filed their habeas petitions during the 90-day removal period,
the district court correctly dismissed the petitions.”). See also Inemo S.C. v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., CV-19-02881-PJS (LIB), 2020 WL 2765108, at *2 (D. Minn. May 28,
2020) (rejecting petitioner’s request to “consider claims likely to become ripe during the
pendency of the litigation” and stating that “[t]he Court is not aware of any authority
supporting [petitioner’s] claim that a district court may grant a habeas petition challenging
the length of pre-removal detention when the petition was filed before the end of the 90-
day removal period”); Ba v. Gonzales, CV-07-00307-SPM (WCS), 2008 WL 2157073, at
*2 (N.D. Fla. May 19, 2008) (“It is not enough that the period of time expired by the time
the petition is ruled on . . . by the court, the Zadvydas period must have expired before the
Case 2:26-cv-03485-JAT--DMF Document 3 Filed 05/26/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
petition is filed.”).
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and this action are
dismissed without prejudice.
(2) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-03485-JAT--DMF Document 3 Filed 05/26/26 Page 3 of 3