D.A.M. v. Kristi Noem, Pamela Jo Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Jesus Rocha, Jeremy Casey, and David Rivas

Summary

The court grants in part D.A.M.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging prolonged immigration detention after an administratively final removal order and a grant of protection under the Convention Against Torture. Applying Zadvydas v. Davis, the court finds that the petitioner showed no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future and that the respondents failed to rebut that showing. The court orders the petitioner’s immediate release and directs the parties to file a joint status report confirming release.

Holdings

1. The district court retained habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the petition challenged an ancillary or collateral detention issue rather than the validity of the final removal order.
2. Petitioner satisfied the initial burden of showing good reason to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and Respondents failed to rebut that showing; continued detention was therefore unlawful.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over Petitioner's challenge to prolonged detention that was collateral to the final removal order.
2. Whether Petitioner's continued post-removal detention violated the limitations recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis because there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
3. Whether Petitioner was entitled to immediate release from custody.