Alhadje v. Guadian

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04153-CNS
ALI ALHADJE,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT GUADIAN, Denver Field Office Director ICE Enforcement and Removal
Operations,
Respondent.
ORDER
I. 	SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PETITIONER
You seek immediate release from your detention. However, you acknowledge that
in January 2026 you refused to board a flight from Denver to Louisiana that was booked
for your removal. Because you acknowledge that you refused to board this flight and you
are removable, in the eyes of the law you have engaged in behavior that prohibits the
Court from granting your release from detention. Therefore, the Court must deny your
habeas petition.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner 	represents 	himself 	without 	an 	attorney. 	Petitioner 	challenges 	his
detention through a habeas petition. See, e.g., ECF No. 6 at 4. In their response brief,
Respondents represent that Petitioner “acted to prevent his removal by refusing to board
Case No. 1:25-cv-04153-CNS Document 24 filed 03/20/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
the January 20, 2026, flight to Louisiana for staging for removal,” ECF No. 17 at 8, and
provide evidentiary support for this proposition in connection with their supplemental brief.
See, e.g., ECF No. 19-1 at 2. Petitioner concedes that he refused to board this flight in
his own reply brief. See ECF No. 23 at 1; id. at 2 (“I refused to board.”). Because Petitioner
concedes that he refused to board this flight, the Court DENIES his habeas petition.
Fatal to Petitioner’s petition is his concession that he refused to board his flight to
Louisiana. The Tenth Circuit has concluded in a case where a petitioner “refused to
accept or acknowledge” required forms “to assist in [removal]” and “refused to complete
an application for a Nigerian passport,” Abiodun v. Mukasey, 264 F. App’x 726, 729 (10th
Cir. 2008), that petitioner’s detention “did not raise the specter of indefinite detention,” id.
(emphasis added). See also Singh v. Barr, No. 17-CV-03057-DDD, 2019 WL 2452822,
at *4 (D. Colo. June 12, 2019) (“And, as in Abiodun but unlike Zadvydas, there is no
showing that India would not receive [the petitioner], and his continued detention is of his
own doing.” (citation modified)).
The facts here are similar. Fundamentally, Petitioner’s acknowledged refusal to
board the flight to Louisiana does not raise the specter of indefinite detention that might
otherwise give rise to a valid habeas claim. Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C); Pelich v. I.N.S.,
329 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The risk of indefinite detention that motivated the
Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation in Zadvydas does not exist when an alien is the
cause of his own detention.”); Lema v. I.N.S., 341 F.3d 853, 857 n.7 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[R]emovable aliens should not be rewarded with release into the United States for their
Case No. 1:25-cv-04153-CNS Document 24 filed 03/20/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
bad behavior in refusing to assist officials to effect their removal.” (citation modified)); ECF
No. 6 at 6.
“To be sure, [Respondent’s] protracted efforts to complete removal is no cause for
praise.” Rani v. Barr, No. 19-CV-02017-RBJ, 2019 WL 6682834, at *3 (D. Colo. Dec. 6,
2019). But based on the record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that granting
Petitioner the habeas relief he seeks is proper. See, e.g., Lema, 341 F.3d at 853; ECF
No. 6 at 6.
Accordingly, and consistent with the above analysis, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 6. The
Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
DATED this 20th day of March 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-04153-CNS Document 24 filed 03/20/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3