Gurami Chikviladze v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01609
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

GURAMI CHIKVILADZE #A249-101- CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-01609 389, SEC P Petitioner

VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

U S IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES ENFORCEMENT, Respondents

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by pro se Petitioner Gurami Chikviladze (“Chikviladze”), an immigration detainee at River Correctional Center in Ferriday, Louisiana. ECF No. 10. Chikviladze alleges that there is no substantial likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and he seeks release from detention. Because Chikviladze establishes entitlement to relief, the Petition should be GRANTED. I. Background Chikviladze is a native and citizen of Georgia who entered the United States on September 13, 2023. ECF No. 12-1 at 1. Chikviladze was ordered removed to Georgia, but granted withholding of removal. ECF Nos. 1, 12-1. On September 16, 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appealed the immigration judge’s decision. ECF No. 12-1 at 1. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal on March 11, 2025. Chikviladze has been detained for two and one-half years, the last 12 months

of which were post-removal order detention. II. Law and Analysis This Court has jurisdiction to consider Chikviladze’s challenge to his continued post-removal order detention. , No. 5:25-CV-176, 2026 WL 237282, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2026) (“Mr. Nguyen contests only his post-removal- period detention . . . rather than any aspect of his underlying removal order or the

decision by DHS to execute it. Thus, . . . the Court retains jurisdiction to review his detention.”); , No. 3:25-CV-1700, 2025 WL 2981626, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2025) (“[T]he Court retains jurisdiction to review a noncitizen's detention insofar as that detention presents constitutional issues, such as those raised in a habeas petition.”) (quotation omitted), , No. 3:25-CV-1700, 2025 WL 2980642 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2025); , No. 25-CV-1947, 2025 WL 3784489, at *2 (W.D. La. Dec.

10, 2025), , No. 25-CV-1947, 2026 WL 19378 (W.D. La. Jan. 2, 2026). Because the Court has jurisdiction to consider Chikviladze’s claims, it turns now to the merits. After an alien is ordered removed, the Government has 90 days with which to effectuate the removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). However, § 1231 permits detention beyond 90 days, for a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States. , 533 U.S. at 701. In fact, detention for up to six months is “presumptively reasonable.” Afterward, if the alien “provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal

in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the Government must either rebut that showing or release him. ; 8 CFR § 241.13 (setting forth the procedures). The petitioner bears the initial burden of demonstrating that a likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future does not exist. , 459 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2006). The alien’s claim must be supported by more than mere “speculation and conjecture.” , No. 03-cv-1293, 2003

WL 21805198, *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2003) (citing , 227 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2002)). Chikviladze’s order of removal became final on March 11, 2025, when DHS’s appeal was dismissed. Thus, Chikviladze has been detained beyond the presumptively reasonable period, and the presumption of reasonableness no longer applies. , 5:25-CV-1545, 2025 WL 3654368, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2025).

Chikviladze has satisfied his initial burden of demonstrating that a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future does not exist. He was granted withholding of removal to Georgia, the only country to which he is a citizen. And he alleges that the Government cannot remove him to Azerbaijan. ECF No. 1-2 at 3. The Response to the Petition contains the Declaration of Assistant Field Office Director Charles Ward (“Ward”). Ward attests that a request for acceptance was sent to the Embassy of Azerbaijan on March 30, 2025, but the Government received no

response. ECF No. 12-1 at 2. On May 13, 2025, a request for acceptance was sent to the Consulate of Honduras “to determine if the country is willing to accept” Chikviladze. Honduras officials denied the request two days later. On June 15, 2025, the Government turned to the Consulate of Columbia, which has yet to acknowledge the request.

No additional requests were made for the next eight months, until February 7, 2026, when a request for acceptance was sent to the Consulate of Turkey. That request remains pending. The Government does not argue that it is likely, or even possible, that this fourth country—to which Chikviladze has no ties—will accept him. Whatever latitude § 1231(a)(6) and executive policy may afford for temporary, good-faith efforts to secure travel documents, they do not permit the Government to detain a non-

citizen indefinitely while it waits on speculative, undefined, and shifting possibilities of removal to a country whose willingness to receive Chikviladze remains uncertain. , 533 U.S. at 689–701. All efforts to remove Chikviladze for the last 12 months have failed. Accordingly, the Government has not met its burden to show that there is any significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Ill. Conclusion Because Chikviladze is entitled to relief under Zadvydas, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED, and Chikviladze released from detention. 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 Tuesday, March 3, 2026. TH JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE