Meknat Mohammad v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 18, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-01139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEKNAT MOHAMMAD, No. 1:26-cv-01139-DAD-DMC-HC A-045-647-634, 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 14 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et. al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding with counsel, filed an amended 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 11. Respondents 19 filed an answer, ECF No. 13, and Petitioner filed a reply, ECF No. 14. 20 Petitioner argues that Petitioner’s detention exceeds their statutory authority 21 because Petitioner’s removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future and 22 Respondents have not established a change in circumstances as to the likelihood of Petitioner’s 23 removal to justify his continued detention. See ECF No. 11. According to Petitioner, his order of 24 removal became final in 2013 but he was released “because removal could not be effectuated— 25 most critically, because Iran would not provide travel documents.” Id. at 2. Respondents contend 26 that “Petitioner is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)” due to a 2013 conviction and 27 Petitioner was “placed in ICE custody on January 8, 2026, after being released from a prison 28 sentence for even yet another crime.” ECF No. 13, pg. 1. 1 When a noncitizen1 subject to a final order of removal is released due to a finding 2 of no significant likelihood of removal, 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) provides the procedures necessary 3 to revoke such release:

4 Upon revocation, the alien will be notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release. The Service will conduct an initial informal interview promptly after 5 his or her return to Service custody to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification. The alien may submit any 6 evidence or information that he or she believes shows there is no significant likelihood he or she be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, or that he or 7 she has not violated the order of supervision. The revocation custody review will include an evaluation of any contested facts relevant to the revocation and a 8 determination whether the facts as determined warrant revocation and further denial of release. 9 Such process is required even if the basis of revocation is violation of order of 10 supervision, as indicated by the structure of the statute and the fact that the process allows the 11 noncitizen opportunity to present evidence “that he or she has not violated the order of 12 supervision.” Further, “ICE has a duty to follow its own regulations and, if it fails to do so, the 13 detention is likely a violation of due process.” Uzzhina v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-1594 DAD SCR, 14 2025 WL 3458787, at *3–4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) (collecting cases). Here, Respondents do not 15 address whether this procedure has been provided to Petitioner and the current record provides no 16 information addressing this issue. 17 Additionally, Respondents assert that “If ICE had travel documents ready for the 18 petitioner in this instant, Petitioner would have no grounds to challenge his mandatory detention 19 in preparation for removal.” ECF No. 13, pg. 2. Petitioner argues there is no significant likelihood 20 of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future because Respondents previously were unable 21 to remove Petitioner to Iran and the current circumstances make obtaining travel documents from 22 Iran unlikely given that “the United States has launched combat operations involving Iran and 23 that the situation has produced significant security and travel disruptions.” ECF No. 11-1, pg. 3. 24 Respondents argue that though they previously were unable to obtain such documents and “the 25 United States is currently at war with Iran . . . this, however, does not mean that ICE will be 26 27 1 This order uses the term “noncitizen” as equivalent to the statutory term “alien,” in keeping with 28 recent preferred nomenclature. Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 527 n.1 (9th Cir. 2023) 1 | unable to affect Petitioner’s removal from the United States and the agency should be given the 2 || appropriate time to consider removal alternatives to Iran.” ECF No. 13, pg. 2. 3 Despite Respondents’ general claim that they may be able to obtain travel 4 | documents or identify another country to remove Petitioner to, Respondents do not provide any 5 || information as to any steps taken to effectuate Petitioner’s removal, including requesting travel 6 || documents from Iran, any communications with Iran regarding Petitioner’s travel documents, or 7 || the process for determining if Petitioner could be removed to a third country. 8 Given the indication that Respondents detained Petitioner without following the 9 || requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(1)(3) and the lack of information regarding Respondents’ steps 10 || to effectuating Petitioner’s removal, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within 11 | fourteen (14) days of the date of this order why the undersigned should not recommend granting 12 || the petition for failure to provide Petitioner the process required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13()(3) and 13 || failure to demonstrate significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably foreseeable 14 || future. Petitioner shall have seven (7) days after Respondents’ filing to reply. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: May 18, 2026 = WS Co 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28