Background
Ijeoma Miriam Chanthavong, a Nigerian citizen convicted of an aggravated felony, became subject to a Final Administrative Removal Order dated December 22, 2025. She filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 one day after Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued the order.
The District of Minnesota dismissed the petition without prejudice, concluding that Chanthavong’s detention was mandatory and that her challenge was premature. Chanthavong appealed, also asserting that she had begun proceedings to vacate the guilty plea underlying her conviction and was pursuing relief under the Violence Against Women Act.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. It held that Chanthavong was subject to mandatory detention during the statutory 90-day removal period and was not entitled to an individualized bond hearing. Because she challenged her detention immediately after issuance of the removal order, her detention remained within the six-month period considered presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis and complied with constitutional limits.
The court also concluded that Chanthavong had not shown that any effort to vacate her guilty plea had succeeded or that she had challenged the removal order on that basis. Her VAWA argument likewise did not warrant relief because she failed to explain either her eligibility or how a pending application affected the reasonableness of her detention.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen ordered removed based on an aggravated-felony conviction is subject to mandatory detention during the 90-day removal period without an individualized bond hearing.
- A detention challenge filed one day after entry of a removal order was premature because the detention was still presumptively reasonable.
- Pending efforts to undo a conviction or seek VAWA relief do not affect detention without a developed showing that those proceedings alter the legal basis or reasonableness of detention.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision reinforces that post-removal-order detention is mandatory during the initial removal period and that constitutional challenges ordinarily will not succeed when brought at the outset of detention. It also illustrates the need for habeas petitioners to connect pending collateral or immigration proceedings directly to the legality or duration of their detention.