Gurami Chikviladze v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al
This text of Gurami Chikviladze v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al (Gurami Chikviladze v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
GURAMI CHIKVILADZE #A249-101- CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-01112 389, SEC P Petitioner
VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS
U S IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES ENFORCEMENT ET AL, Respondent
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Gurami Chikviladze (“Chikviladze”). Chikviladze is an immigration detainee at River Correctional Center in Ferriday, Louisiana. He seeks his release from detention. Because the Petition was filed prematurely, it should be DISMISSED. I. Background Chikviladze is a native and citizen of Georgia. ECF No. 1-2 at 3. He alleges that his detention has been continuous since he entered the United States on September 13, 2023. ECF Nos. 1 at 4; 1-2 at 3. On August 15, 2024, Chikviladze was ordered removed to Georgia. ECF No. 7 at 5. The immigration judge denied asylum, but granted withholding of removal. ECF No. 1 at 4. The Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) appeal was dismissed on March 11, 2025, and the removal order became final. ECF No. 7 at 8- 10. Chikviladze asserts that there is no significant likelihood of his removal to Georgia in the reasonably foreseeable future, and his continued detention is unconstitutional.
II. Law and Analysis
Once an alien is ordered removed, DHS must physically remove him from the United States within a 90-day “removal period.” 8 U. S. C. § 1231(a)(1)(A); , 594 U.S. 523, 528 (2021). The removal period begins on the latest of three dates: (1) the date the order of removal becomes “administratively final”; (2) the date of the final order of any court that entered a stay of removal; or (3) the date on which the alien is released from non-immigration detention or confinement. at § 1231(a)(1)(B). However, the United States Supreme Court has held that § 1231 permits the detention beyond 90 days, for a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States. , 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Detention for up to six months is presumptively reasonable.
After six months, if an alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. The six-month presumption does not mean that every alien not removed must be released after six months. To the contrary, an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. 533 U.S. at 701. Chikviladze’s removal order became final on March 11, 2025, when the BIA dismissed DHS’s appeal. See8 C.F.R. § 1241.1. The habeas Petition was filed August 4, 2025, prior to the expiration of the presumptively reasonable six-month detention period. Ill. Conclusion Because Chikviladze’s Petition was filed prematurely, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition be DENIED and DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling should his detention become prolonged. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections. No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error. SIGNED on Monday, September 29, 2025.
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gurami Chikviladze v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gurami-chikviladze-v-u-s-immigration-customs-enforcement-et-al-lawd-2025.