The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TEJAS VISHNUBHAI PAREKH,
Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-01719
v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
WARDEN, PIKE COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is Tejas Vishnubhai Parekh’s (“Parekh”) petition for writ of habeas
corpus. (Doc. 1). Parekh requests that Respondent Warden of the Pike County Correctional
Facility (“Respondent”) release him from custody. For the following reasons the Court finds
that Parekh’s petition is duplicative and shall be DENIED without prejudice.
The prohibition against successive petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 does not apply to petitions for habeas corpus filed in the immigration context under 8
28 U.S.C. § 2241; however, the abuse of writ doctrine may apply to bar successive
immigration habeas petitions. Zayas v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 247, 255-56 (3d Cir. 2002); Abdel-Whab
v. Secretary of Dept. of Homeland Sec., 132 F. App’x 988, 989-90 (3d Cir. 2005). A successive
immigration habeas petition, “which raises grounds identical to those raised and rejected on
the merits, need not be entertained.” Esogbue v. Holmes, 142 F. App’x 98, 100 (3d Cir. 2005)
(citing Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 454 (1986)). When a petitioner fails to indicate any
new claims or provide an explanation for failing to raise such issues in his first habeas petition,
a successive § 2241 petition is properly dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Abdel-Whab, 132 F.
App’x at 990 (citing Zayas, 311 F.3d at 258).
An order of removal becomes final “upon expiration of the time allotted for an
appeal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1; 8 U.S.C. § 1231. To appeal an order of removal, the petitioner or
respondent must file a notice to appeal with the Board of Immigration appeals (“BIA”) within
thirty calendar days of the immigration judge’s decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b)(2). The date
the notice to appeal is deemed filed is the date the BIA receives the notice of appeal. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.38(c). Once an order of removal becomes final, “the Attorney General shall remove
the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B).
Parekh’s instant petition is nearly identical to a petition for writ of habeas corpus he
previously filed, which the Court denied on June 11, 2026. (Doc. 1); Parekh v. Warden, 3:26-
cv-01375, Dkt. No. 13. The only difference between the two petitions is that in the instant
petition, Parekh indicates that he filed an appeal of his order of removal on June 6, 2026.
(Doc. 1, at 2, 5). However, Parekh’s appeal of his order of removal was not timely because he
failed to file his appeal within thirty days of April 20, 2026, the date the immigration judge
issued Parekh’s order of removal. Parekh v. Warden, 3:26-cv-01375, Dkt. No. 13; 8 C.F.R. §
1241.1; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b)(2), (c). Accordingly, Parekh remains detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231, and the government has arranged for Parekh’s removal within the statutory ninety-
day removal period. Parekh v. Warden, 3:26-cv-01375, Dkt. No. 13. As the posture of Parekh’s
confinement has not changed, and Parekh’s instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is
otherwise identical to his previously filed petition, the instant petition (Doc. 1) is successive
and duplicative and need not be entertained by the Court. Esogbue, 142 F. App’x at 100 (citing
Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 454); Abdel-Whab, 132 F. App’x at 990 (citing Zayas, 311 F.3d at 258).
For the foregoing reasons IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Tejas
Vishnubhai Parekh’s (“Parekh”) petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED without
prejudice. (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter.
BY THE COURT:
Dated: June 25, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge