Jamila Rajabi v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

W.D. Louisiana

Jamila Rajabi v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

DecidedJune 29, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-00922

StatusUnknown

This text of Jamila Rajabi v. Pamela Bondi, et al. (Jamila Rajabi v. Pamela Bondi, 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.

Bluebook

Jamila Rajabi v. Pamela Bondi, et al., (W.D. La. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

JAMILA RAJABI CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-0922

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK

PAMELA BONDI, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

JUDGMENT

Jamila Rajabi (“Rajabi”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Record Document 1. After being referred the petition, the Magistrate Judge issued a well- reasoned Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”). Record Document 2. The Respondents did not object to the Recommendation and offered no evidence that Rajabi presents a flight risk or danger to the community.1 After independently reviewing the record, evidence, and pleadings, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation’s findings are correct. Considering the foregoing, and for the reasons stated in the Recommendation,

1 Although the Respondents did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court has considered and rejected their earlier argument that the six-month period of presumptive reasonableness under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) does not commence until after the 90 day statutory period for removal has expired. Both the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and district courts have recognized that the six-month period of Zadvydas includes the 90 day removal period. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 285 F.3d 398, 403 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting that the six month period “apparently begin[s] with the beginning of the removal period.”); Galtogbah v. Sessions, No. 18-880, 2019 WL 3766280, at *1 (W.D. La. June 18, 2019) (“[T]he Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have both found that the presumptively reasonable six-month period includes the statutory 90-day removal period.”); Marquez-Amaya v. Thompson, No. 25-1501, 2025 WL 3654327, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2025) (“This six-month period [of Zadyvdas] includes the 90-day removal period.”). IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Record Document 1, is GRANTED. The Petitioner shall be RELEASED immediately and under appropriate conditions as determined by the Department of Homeland Security. THE CLERK IS INSTRUCTED to send this judgment to the Civil Chief of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Louisiana. DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 29th day of June, 2026.

ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

JAMILA RAJABI CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-0922

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK

PAMELA BONDI, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

JUDGMENT

Jamila Rajabi (“Rajabi”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Record Document 1. After being referred the petition, the Magistrate Judge issued a well- reasoned Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”). Record Document 2. The Respondents did not object to the Recommendation and offered no evidence that Rajabi presents a flight risk or danger to the community.1 After independently reviewing the record, evidence, and pleadings, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation’s findings are correct. Considering the foregoing, and for the reasons stated in the Recommendation,

1 Although the Respondents did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court has considered and rejected their earlier argument that the six-month period of presumptive reasonableness under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) does not commence until after the 90 day statutory period for removal has expired. Both the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and district courts have recognized that the six-month period of Zadvydas includes the 90 day removal period. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 285 F.3d 398, 403 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting that the six month period “apparently begin[s] with the beginning of the removal period.”); Galtogbah v. Sessions, No. 18-880, 2019 WL 3766280, at *1 (W.D. La. June 18, 2019) (“[T]he Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have both found that the presumptively reasonable six-month period includes the statutory 90-day removal period.”); Marquez-Amaya v. Thompson, No. 25-1501, 2025 WL 3654327, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2025) (“This six-month period [of Zadyvdas] includes the 90-day removal period.”). IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Record Document 1, is GRANTED. The Petitioner shall be RELEASED immediately and under appropriate conditions as determined by the Department of Homeland Security. THE CLERK IS INSTRUCTED to send this judgment to the Civil Chief of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Louisiana. DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 29th day of June, 2026.

ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jamila Rajabi v. Pamela Bondi, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamila-rajabi-v-pamela-bondi-et-al-lawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack