Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 AYAN ABDUL WAKIL, Case No. 1:25-cv-01098-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO FILE

REPORT

13

v.

14 (Docs. 25, 27, 29, 30)

WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE

15 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 14-Day Deadline

16 Respondents.

17

18 Petitioner Ayan Abdul Wakil (“Petitioner”) is a federal immigration detainee proceeding

19 pro se and in forma pauperis.1

20 Relevant Background

21 On August 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

22 2241 while in custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Golden State

23 Annex, located in McFarland, California. (Doc. 1). After the Court preliminarily concluded that

24 Petitioner’s petition may be cognizable under § 2241, on September 4, 2025, the Court set a briefing

25 schedule on the petition. (Doc. 7). On October 17, 2025, Respondents timely filed a response to

26

27

1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all proceedings

1 the petition. (Doc. 14). Petitioner filed a brief in support of his petition on October 14, 2025, and

2 a supplemental brief on November 10, 2025. (Docs. 13, 16).2

3 On December 30, 2025, Respondents filed a notice indicating that the Ninth Circuit Court

4 of Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review of an order issued in expedited removal

5 proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, denied Petitioner’s motion for stay of removal, and lifted the

6 temporary stay of removal entered upon Petitioner’s commencement of those appellate

7 proceedings. (Doc. 18).

8 On January 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”), and

9 on January 13, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion as untimely and because the motion

10 improperly sought relief other than what is sought in his petition. (Docs. 20, 21). On January 16,

11 2026, Petitioner filed a supplemental request for emergency stay of removal in support of his TRO

12 motion. (Doc. 22).

13 On January 21, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc.

14 23). The Court found that, upon the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal of the negative

15 credible fear interview finding in his underlying immigration proceedings, Petitioner became

16 subject to mandatory detention for up to 90 days under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) within which the

17 government was obligated to effect his final order of removal. Id. at 8. Because the 90-day removal

18 period would expire on or about and March 30, 2026, in its order, the Court maintained jurisdiction

19 and directed Respondents to file a report by that same date regarding Petitioner’s status and to show

20 cause why he should not be released and subject to a bond hearing prior to any re-detention

21 following the statutory removal period. Id. at 10.

22 On March 30, 2026, Respondents timely filed a report in which they assert that Petitioner

23 repeatedly has acted to prevent his removal, including specifically (1) by refusing in June 2025 to

24 board aircraft available to transport him in furtherance of the order of removal, (2) by stating that

25 he “refused to depart the United States” on January 14, 2026, and (3) refusing to depart the United

26

27

2 Petitioner’s filing (Doc. 17) appears to be an opinion letter he drafted and excerpts of

online news articles.

1 States on March 4, 2026. (Doc. 25).3 Respondents also represent that, as of March 24, 2026,

2 charter flights to the Afghanistan region were postponed until at least May 2026 due to the conflict

3 in the Middle East. Id. at 3.

4 On April 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a “Petition to deny Respondent’s Status Report” and

5 “Request for Release” in which he raised arguments largely already considered by the Court in

6 resolving his petition and motion for TRO. (Doc. 29); see (Docs. 21, 23). Petitioner represents

7 that he has consistently cooperated with Respondents as he “has never refused to depart the United

8 States to a third country, rather, he has always sought deportation to a third country” and that he

9 told his deportation officer that he “would cooperate” even if he was sent to prison. (Doc. 29 at 6-

10 7). Petitioner requests the Court issue an order that he should be released and provided a bond

11 hearing prior to any re-detention following the statutory removal period. Id. at 11.

12 On June 4, 2026, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Compel Respondents to Correct the

13 Administrative Record” in which he seeks a court order compelling Respondents to correct the

14 administrative record “to reflect the legally accurate date of the final negative credible fear

15 determination and service of the expedited removal order.” (Doc. 30 at 2). Petitioner asserts that

16 no credible fear determination existed on May 6, 2025, as the immigration judge (“IJ”) review

17 proceeding remained pending, no legally effective expedited removal order could yet issue, and the

18 IJ did not affirm the negative credible fear finding until May 12, 2025. Id. Petitioner argues the

19 government’s erroneous recording of May 6, 2025, as the final service date “materially prejudiced”

20 him because the asylum office subsequently denied his request for re-interview as untimely. Id.

21 Discussion

22 Respondents’ status reports filed at the direction of the Court do not adequately demonstrate

23 that Petitioner’s removal period may be extended beyond 90 days. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C),

24 the 90-day period may be extended only if Petitioner (1) “fails or refuses to make timely application

25 in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the [his] departure or” (2) “conspires or

26 acts to prevent [his] removal subject to an order of removal.” First, it is unclear what if any travel

27 3 The Court misconstrued Respondents’ filing to imply that Petitioner also refused to

board aircraft on January 14, 2026, and March 4, 2026 (see Doc. 26) and Respondents timely

1 documents Petitioner is required to but has refused to obtain given Respondents’ representations

2 that they were prepared to remove Petitioner in June 2025, and separately, that they prepared to

3 place him on a charter flight for removal on or about March 5, 2026. (Doc. 25 at 3) (citing

4 Declaration of deportation officer Farshid Moradi Kouchi [“Kouchi Decl.], Doc. 25-1, ¶¶ 7, 12).

5 These representations appear to suggest that Respondents have obtained sufficient travel documents

6 to facilitate Petitioner’s removal. Second, although Respondents represent that Petitioner stated

7 that he “refused to depart the United States” on January 14, 2026 (Doc. 25 at 2) and refused to

8 depart the United States on March 4, 2026 (id. at 3), the evidence they cite does not establish either

9 of these facts. See (Kouchi Decl. ¶¶ 9 & Ex. 9, 11 & Ex. 11).

10 Respondents cite and rely on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Pelich v. I.N.S. (329 F.3d 1057

11 (9th Cir. 2003)), in which the Court denied a petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus when

12 his detention persisted after the statutory 90-day removal period had expired. (Doc. 25 at 3). The

13 Court found that the petitioner’s “behavior places him within that class of aliens properly detained

14 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C).” Pelich, 329 F.3d at 1061. In reaching this conclusion, the

15 Pelich Court relied on the fact that the petitioner “steadfastly refused to fill out a Polish passport

16 application, which directly impedes Poland’s ability to determine whether Pelich qualifies for

17 Polish travel document,” and that he “provided the INS with conflicting information regarding his

18 name, his parents’ names, his parents’ birthplaces and residences, his birthplace and his

19 nationality.” Id. at 1059. Here, in contrast, Respondents have not identified similar affirmative

20 misconduct by Petitioner since the 90-day removal period began (and now has expired) that would

21 permit a finding pursuant to § 1231(a)(1)(C) that Petitioner’s lack of cooperation in facilitating

22 removal warrants extending the removal period. Cf. Diouf v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 1222, 1231 (9th

23 Cir. 2008) (noting that § 1231(a)(1)(C) permits restarting the 90-day period of mandatory detention

24 “following the latest date of documented obstruction” by the noncitizen ordered removed).

25 In short, it is unclear what if anything Petitioner has done to impede Respondents’ ability

26 to effect his removal since the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s appeal in his underlying

27 immigration proceedings and lifted the stay of removal. Instead, Respondents’ representations

1 reflect that the conflict in the Middle East and the unavailability of charter flights to the region have

2 stalled the government’s ability to remove Petitioner. See id. ¶¶ 12-14.

3 Respondents separately argue that, even if the 90-day removal period is not properly

4 extended pursuant to § 1231(a)(1)(C) under the circumstances present here, upon the expiration of

5 the 90-day removal period (e.g., March 30, 2026), detention nevertheless is authorized pursuant to

6 § 1231(a)(6) for an additional period of time. (Doc. 25 at 4 n.2). While that is correct, Respondents

7 incorrectly argue that the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001)

8 recognized as presumptively reasonable a six-month period of detention following the expiration

9 of the 90-day removal period. (Doc. 25 at 4 n.2). In fact, the Zadvydas court found that an order

10 of detention during the first six months after entry of a final removal order is presumptively

11 reasonable. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.

12 Accordingly, the Court will order Respondents to file a further status report, supported as

13 necessary by a declaration of a knowledgeable witness, setting forth: (1) any affirmative

14 misconduct by Petitioner since the 90-day removal period began (e.g., December 29, 2025) that

15 would permit a finding pursuant to § 1231(a)(1)(C) that Petitioner’s lack of cooperation in

16 facilitating removal warrants extending the 90-day removal period during which detention is

17 mandated; and (2) all efforts Respondents have undertaken since the 90-day removal period began

18 to facilitate Petitioner’s removal.

19 Conclusion and Order

20 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents SHALL FILE with the Court

21 and SHALL SERVE upon Petitioner within 14 days of entry of this order a further status report,

22 supported as necessary by a declaration of a knowledgeable witness, setting forth: (1) any

23 affirmative misconduct by Petitioner since the 90-day removal period began (e.g., December 29,

24 2025) that would permit a finding pursuant to § 1231(a)(1)(C) that Petitioner’s lack of cooperation

25 in facilitating removal warrants extending the 90-day removal period during which detention is

26 mandated; and (2) all efforts Respondents have undertaken since the 90-day removal period began

27 to facilitate Petitioner’s removal.

] Petitioner may file a response to Respondents’ further status report within 21 days of

2 || Respondents’ filing and service thereof.

3 | ITIS SOORDERED.

4 Dated: _ June 10, 2026 | by

5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28