Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA
A federal judge in Phoenix has sanctioned an assistant U.S. attorney for telling the court, with no record to back it up, that a detained Iranian man’s lawyer had likely made a false statement to ICE to stop his deportation. Judge Diane J. Humetewa’s order, signed Oct. 8 and filed Oct. 9, requires the prosecutor, Brooks Chupp, to complete legal training, and it goes to the heart of an argument the government relies on to keep people in custody past the six-month mark the Supreme Court set: that the detainee, or his lawyer, blocked his own removal.
The penalty is light; the reasoning is what lawyers on both sides will study. Under Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), detention after a final removal order is generally lawful beyond about six months only if removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. But under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(C), the removal period is extended if a person fails to seek travel documents in good faith or “acts to prevent” removal. An obstruction claim can therefore decide whether someone stays locked up, and the Arizona order says it must rest on evidence, not inference.
An email flagging an appeal, recast as a possible lie
The petitioner in H.E. v. Bondi left Iran because of his sexual orientation, entered the United States in January 2025 and was detained on arrival. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Iran on April 30, 2025, later adding Turkey as an alternative. On Nov. 24, 2025, a new lawyer asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to accept a late appeal. On Dec. 2 she emailed ICE’s El Paso outreach address under the subject line “URGENT: APPEAL PENDING” to say the appeal was now before the board. He was not put on a December deportation flight. The board denied the motion on Dec. 19.
Once he filed a habeas petition in March 2026, the government’s account of that email hardened without new facts. A March 24 filing called it “unclear” whether the lawyer’s statements amounted to noncompliance. An April 1 filing signed by Chupp said it “seems likely” she had told ICE her client was not removable and that “such a statement would have been untrue.” Three days later the government conceded it had no specific records of what she said and that no obstruction took place in December.
Humetewa ordered the man released on April 6, finding removal to Iran unforeseeable given the U.S.-Iran conflict and no evidence of efforts to send him to Turkey or elsewhere. His crying and pleading with officers at a November flight, she held, was not obstruction. She wrote that the idea ICE officials would simply take a defense lawyer’s word on removability “would be, in the Court’s experience, beyond credulity.”
Why the court called it frivolous
Rule 11 requires factual claims in court filings to have evidentiary support, and when a judge acts on her own, Ninth Circuit precedent ordinarily reserves sanctions for conduct “akin to contempt.” Humetewa found the accusation objectively baseless, noted that Chupp never asked the lawyer what she had told ICE, and held the conduct negligent and frivolous, tantamount to bad faith. She relied on Diouf v. Mukasey (9th Cir. 2008), which holds that the government must document conduct it says prolonged removal.
Chupp must complete at least one hour of continuing legal education on the special role of U.S. attorneys and one hour on the need for evidentiary support for factual claims, by June 30, 2027. The judge declined the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s request for a hearing and called its plan to tighten internal standards commendable but irrelevant to the violation. Newsweek, which reported the order on Oct. 10, said it had asked the Justice Department for comment; no response was reported.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- Order imposing Rule 11 sanctions, H.E. v. Bondi, No. CV-26-01770-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz., signed Oct. 8, 2026)
- Order granting habeas petition, H.E. v. Bondi (D. Ariz., April 6, 2026)
- Docket, H.E. v. Bondi (CourtListener)
- 8 U.S.C. 1231, Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)
- DOJ Attorney Ordered To Undergo Legal Training After ICE Case Accusation (Newsweek, Oct. 10, 2026)
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
