Vishal v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Vishal’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, finding that his prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) was unreasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis. The court ordered his immediate release subject to supervision and held that the government’s third-country removal procedures violated due process and Ninth Circuit precedent. The court permanently enjoined removal to a third country unless specified notice and opportunities to assert fear-based protection claims were provided.

Holdings

1. Petitioner's continued detention was unreasonable and no longer authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because he had been detained beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period, showed good reason to believe that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and the government failed to provide sufficient rebuttal evidence.
2. Petitioner's two altercations while in immigration custody did not justify continued detention under § 1231(a)(6).
3. The March 30 and July 9, 2025 third-country removal policies violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and Ninth Circuit precedent because they did not guarantee meaningful notice and an opportunity to assert a fear-based claim before removal to a third country.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner's continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) became unreasonable and unauthorized after he provided good reason to believe that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future and the government failed to rebut that showing.
2. Whether petitioner's two custodial altercations justified continued detention despite the lack of a reasonably foreseeable removal.
3. Whether the government's March 30 and July 9, 2025 third-country removal procedures violated due process by failing to provide meaningful notice and an opportunity to assert a fear-based claim before removal.
4. What relief was appropriate for the statutory detention violation and the due-process violation.

Disposition

other