Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
NELSON JOSE ALEXANDRE FILHO, )
)
Petitioner, )
v. ) Case No. 26-3050-JWL
)
C. CARTER, Warden, FCI-Leavenworth; )
SAMUEL OLSON, ICE Field Office Director; )
TODD LYONS, ICE Acting Director; )
DHS Secretary; and )
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, )
)
Respondents. )
)
_______________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner, acting through counsel, filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, by which he challenges his detention by immigration officials. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court denies the petition.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the United States in 2018. In 2022,
petitioner failed to appear at an immigration court hearing, and his removal was ordered in
absentia. On September 9, 2025, immigration officials served a warrant on petitioner and
took petitioner into custody. In October 2025, an immigration judge denied petitioner’s
motion to reopen his removal case; and on March 20, 2026, the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissed petitioner’s appeal from that denial. Petitioner is presently
detained within this judicial district. On March 13, 2026, petitioner filed the instant
Case 5:26-cv-03050-JWL Document 9 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
petition. Respondents filed an answer to the petition, and petitioner has filed a reply brief,
and the matter is therefore ripe for ruling.
The Court first rejects petitioner’s claim that his detention has become unreasonably
indefinite under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In that case, the Supreme Court
held that although an alien may not be detained indefinitely, the detention of an alien
subject to a final order of removal for up to six months is presumptively reasonable in view
of the time required to accomplish removal. See id. at 699-701. The Supreme Court further
held that, beyond that six-month period, if the alien shows that there is “no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond
with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” See id. at 701. In his petition, petitioner
alleges that his removal period began and expired in 2022. Petitioner concedes, however,
that his removal order was entered in 2022 in absentia, and as respondents note, such a
removal order is stayed when an alien files a motion to reopen his or her case. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). In his reply, petitioner does not dispute respondents’ contention that
petitioner’s removal period thus began on March 20, 2026, when the BIA dismissed
petitioner’s appeal and petitioner’s removal order again became final. See 8 U.S.C. §
1231(a)(1)(B)(i) (removal period begins when removal order becomes final); 8 C.F.R. §
1241.1(a) (removal order becomes final upon BIA’s dismissal of an appeal). Accordingly,
because neither the 90-day removal period nor the Supreme Court’s presumptively-
Case 5:26-cv-03050-JWL Document 9 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
reasonable period of six months has expired, petitioner’s claim under Section 1231 and
Zadvydas fails.1
The Court also rejects petitioner’s due process claim in which he alleges that he is
not being detained for the proper purpose of effecting his removal. Petitioner has cited no
authority suggesting that his detention during the removal period is unconstitutional. Nor
has he shown that his detention is for an improper purpose, as he cannot dispute that his
removal is imminent. The petition is therefore denied in its entirety.2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
/s/ John W. Lungstrum
Hon. John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
1 The Court notes that even if the Zadvydas framework had been triggered here by
a detention in excess of six months, he would not be entitled to relief, as respondents have
provided evidence (not disputed by petitioner) that petitioner has a passport, that therefore
there are no impediments to his removal, and that his removal was actually scheduled for
April 15, 2026, before his removal was automatically stayed by his appeal to the First
Circuit (which stay has since expired).
2 In his petition, petitioner asserted a claim that he was improperly taken into
custody by immigration officials without a warrant. Respondents submitted evidence that
a warrant was in fact served on petitioner at the time of his detention. In his reply, petitioner
does not dispute that evidence or address this claim; accordingly, the Court deems this
claim to have been abandoned.
Case 5:26-cv-03050-JWL Document 9 Filed 04/23/26 Page 3 of 3