Kyambadde v. Rosa et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kyambadde Ronald,
Petitioner,
v.
Luis Rosa, Jr., et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-00138-PHX-MTL (CDB)
ORDER
This case involves a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner,
who entered the United States on June 17, 2015 on a B-2 visa,* alleges that the duration of
his detention violates the United States Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality
Act. Respondents filed a Response to the Petition along with a declaration of Miguel
Martinez, a deportation officer working at the Florence Detention Center in Florence,
Arizona. The Petition will be denied.
I.
Petitioner’s continued detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Under § 1231(a)(1), the Government has 90 days to remove
an alien once a removal order becomes final. Detention during this removal period is
mandatory. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). If the Government cannot effect removal within the 90-
* Petitioner applied for admission and was admitted into the United States “as a
non-immigrant visitor for pleasure, B-2” (Doc. 11-1 at 1 ¶ 5.) The visa provided
“authorization to remain in the United States until December 16, 2015.” (Id.) In 2023,
Petitioner was arrested by Phoenix Police for assault, and the charge was dismissed. (Id.
¶ 7.) In July 2025, Petitioner was convicted of inducing prostitution in the Arizona Superior
Court and sentenced to three years of probation. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Case 2:26-cv-00138-MTL--CDB Document 18 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
day removal period, however, continued detention of aliens such as Petitioner becomes
discretionary. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). That discretion, however, is not unfettered, and
indefinite detention is not permitted. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689 (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)
“does not permit indefinite detention”). This is not to say that every alien like Petitioner
must be released once the 90-day removal period has expired. 533 U.S. at 701. Rather, the
Supreme Court in Zadvydas recognized an implicit post-§ 1231(a)(2) period in which
continued detention is “presumptively reasonable” and does not violate the Fifth
Amendment. Id. The Zadvydas Court concluded that this “presumptively reasonable”
period extends for no more than 6 months once an order of removal becomes final
(including the 90-day mandatory detention period under § 1231(a)(2)). Id. From that point,
“once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence
sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. If, after considering the evidence, the Court finds
that “removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued detention
unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute.” Id. at 699.
II.
The Petition alleges, “[o]n September 30, 2025, an Immigration Judge ordered
Petitioner removed to Uganda but granted him withholding of removal to Uganda because
of his sexual orientation as a gay man and the harm he will definitely face if removed to
Uganda.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) It also alleges that “Petitioner waived appeal, and the order became
administratively final that day.” (Id.) Respondents agree. (Doc. 11-1 at 3 ¶ 17.)
As the Petition itself explains, Petitioner’s detention is still within the 6-month
period of presumptive reasonableness under Zadvydas. Thus, Petitioner’s detention is not
unreasonable as a matter of law, and the Petition must be dismissed.
Even so, on this record, the Court finds that Petitioner cannot show that there is
good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future. Respondents are working to remove Petitioner from the United States
to a country other than Uganda. Respondents explain that he requested removal “to
Case 2:26-cv-00138-MTL--CDB Document 18 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Switzerland, Austria, or the United Kingdom.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Respondents appear to be
working towards that result, as Petitioner desires, if obtainable. Respondents explain that
“[o]n November 4, 2025, ICE submitted a request for assistance to for [sic] a third country
removal to Switzerland, Austria or the UK.” (Id. ¶ 19.) Then, on November 20, and
December 7, 2025, “ICE resubmitted a request for assistance with third country removal.”
(Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) Additionally, “[o]n January 1, 2026, ICE submitted a request for acceptance
of Petitioner to Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda.” (Id. ¶ 22.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner is advised
that the petition may be refiled if detention continues beyond the mandatory period and
there is a good-faith basis to assert that it is unlawful.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Respondents to Accept
and Process Payment of Immigration Judge’s Bond Order and for Immediate Release (Doc.
5) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 11).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of
dismissal without prejudice and close this case.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00138-MTL--CDB Document 18 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3