Reported / Citable
Background
Ivanouski D., a citizen of Belarus detained at the Port Isabel Detention Center, sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. An immigration judge had denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal and ordered him removed to Belarus. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal on July 13, 2026, making the removal order administratively final that day.
Proceeding without counsel, Ivanouski argued that the length of his immigration detention violated the Fifth Amendment. The magistrate judge construed the petition as a challenge under Zadvydas v. Davis to detention following a final removal order. When the report and recommendation was issued, Ivanouski had been detained for slightly more than 60 days after his removal order became final.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended denying the habeas petition without prejudice because the claim was premature and therefore not ripe. Under the report’s reading of Zadvydas and Fifth Circuit authority, detention is presumptively reasonable during the first six months after a removal order becomes administratively final, and a detainee may pursue conditional release after that period by showing no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Because fewer than 180 days had elapsed since Ivanouski’s removal order became final, the magistrate judge concluded that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his detention challenge at that stage. The report also recommended denying as moot both Ivanouski’s venue-related motion and the government’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and directing the clerk to close the case. The recommendation remained subject to objections and review by the assigned district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The filing is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final judgment by the district court.
- The report treated the six months following a final removal order as a presumptively reasonable detention period during which a Zadvydas claim is not ripe.
- The recommended denial is without prejudice, allowing Ivanouski to file another habeas petition if his detention continues until the claim becomes ripe.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates how the timing of a post-removal-order habeas petition can determine whether a federal court reaches the merits. In this court’s view, a detainee who files during Zadvydas’s six-month presumptive period cannot yet obtain judicial review of whether removal is reasonably foreseeable.
The report also distinguishes jurisdictional ripeness from failure to state a claim: because it found no subject-matter jurisdiction, it did not decide the government’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.