Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in a habeas challenge under Zadvydas v. Davis to prolonged immigration detention. The court concludes that the petitioner failed to show a significant likelihood that his removal would not occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, noting Ethiopia’s issuance of travel documents and the petitioner’s prior noncooperation and resistance to removal. The habeas petitions are dismissed without prejudice, and the motion to expedite is denied as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner established under Zadvydas v. Davis that there was no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Whether petitioner was entitled to habeas relief from continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
Holdings
- Petitioner failed to meet his burden of providing good reason to believe that there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- The court did not reach whether respondents rebutted petitioner's showing because petitioner failed to satisfy his initial burden.
- Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief, and the original and amended petitions were dismissed without prejudice.
Key quotations
“After six months, the alien must provide “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”” (533 U.S. at 701)
“The Court re-emphasizes that the reason Petitioner has not yet been removed is due to his own actions and not due to Respondents’ actions.”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] and the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 3] filed by Petitioner are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to Petitioner’s right to re-urge his claim of prolonged detention if he has good reason to believe, in light of any changes in circumstance or new evidence, that his removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
Factual background
U.S. immigration authorities encountered petitioner, a native citizen of Ethiopia, at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in March 2023 and processed him for expedited removal. His removal order became final on March 2, 2024, but removal efforts were delayed by his claimed Somali citizenship, refusal to cooperate with travel-document procedures, applications for Temporary Protected Status, refusal to board a removal flight, and resistance to ICE officers. Ethiopia had issued multiple travel documents, and respondents maintained that removal remained reasonably foreseeable.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed an original and amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his removal was not reasonably foreseeable. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that petitioner had met his burden under Zadvydas. Respondents objected, petitioner responded, and the district court declined to adopt the recommendation after de novo review.