Reported / Citable
Background
Islom Salokhiddinov, a citizen of Tajikistan detained in Los Fresnos, Texas, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. An Immigration Judge issued a final order of removal against him on March 2, 2026. Salokhiddinov did not appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals by the April 3, 2026 deadline, rendering his removal order administratively final on that date under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B).
Salokhiddinov also filed two motions for immediate release. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although Salokhiddinov’s second motion raised new issues — including an alleged warrantless arrest and denial of an interpreter of his choice — the district court declined to consider them because they were raised for the first time in what functioned as objections to the R&R.
The district court conducted a de novo review in an abundance of caution before adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations in full.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Salokhiddinov’s Zadvydas claim was not yet ripe. Under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), a six-month period of post-final-order detention is presumptively reasonable, and a habeas claim challenging continued detention is premature if filed before that period expires. Because Salokhiddinov’s removal order became final on April 3, 2026, and the petition was adjudicated on June 11, 2026 — only approximately two months into the presumptive six-month window — the court found his claim constitutionally unripe.
The court further held that once a final order of removal issues and detention shifts from 8 U.S.C. § 1226 to § 1231, any challenge premised on the pre-final-order detention statute is foreclosed. Citing Andrade v. Gonzales and Agyei-Kodie v. Holder, the court declined to retroactively assess the propriety of Salokhiddinov’s earlier detention under § 1226(c), which was no longer operative.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petition under Zadvydas is unripe — and the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction — if filed before the petitioner’s post-final-order detention has exceeded six months.
- A removal order becomes “administratively final” for § 1231 purposes when the BIA appeal deadline expires, even if no appeal was actually filed.
- Once detention transitions from § 1226 (pre-final-order) to § 1231 (post-final-order), claims challenging the earlier statutory basis for detention become moot and are not cognizable.
- Arguments raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R are not properly before the district court and will not be considered.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the strict jurisdictional timing rules that govern post-removal habeas petitions in the Fifth Circuit. Detainees and their counsel must understand that the six-month Zadvydas clock does not begin running from initial detention but from the date the removal order becomes administratively final — here, the expiration of the BIA appeal period rather than the IJ’s original ruling. Filing too early is not a procedural technicality; it is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal.
The case also reinforces that the shift from § 1226 to § 1231 is a hard legal boundary: arguments about the lawfulness of pre-final-order detention do not carry over once a removal order is final. Practitioners handling prolonged immigration detention cases must track these statutory transitions carefully and time their habeas filings accordingly.