Chambers v. English

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denies Ernel Chambers’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his continued immigration detention. The court concludes that removal to Dominica remains reasonably foreseeable, that Chambers received adequate notice and an informal interview concerning revocation of supervised release, and that the government had not yet violated applicable custody-review regulations. The court notes that Chambers may seek habeas relief later if continued detention becomes unreasonable.

Holdings

1. The court had jurisdiction to review Chambers's post-removal-order immigration-detention claims under § 2241; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9) did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
2. Continued detention beyond the removal period is authorized only for persons covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and only while removal is reasonably foreseeable. Because the government showed that Dominica was likely to issue travel documents and that removal remained reasonably foreseeable, Chambers was not entitled to habeas relief on this ground.
3. Chambers was not entitled to habeas relief based on his claim that he lacked notice of the revocation of supervision or an opportunity to contest it because the respondent submitted contrary documentation and Chambers offered no rebuttal.
4. The government had not shown that it initiated the normal review process contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(3), but the regulation's statement that review should ordinarily occur within approximately three months was uncertain and aspirational rather than a firm deadline. The court therefore found no regulatory violation after approximately five months of re-detention; alternatively, any failure was harmless because removal remained reasonably foreseeable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge to post-removal-order immigration detention notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9).
2. Whether Chambers's continued detention was authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 because his removal was reasonably foreseeable.
3. Whether Chambers was entitled to habeas relief because he allegedly did not receive notice of the revocation of supervised release or an opportunity to contest it.
4. Whether the government violated 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i)(2) and 241.4(l)(3) by failing to initiate a normal custody-review process after revocation of release.

Disposition

dismissed