Reported / Citable
Background
Abdullah Samiullah, an Afghan national, entered the United States without inspection on January 17, 2025, near San Ysidro, California. He was placed in expedited removal proceedings and obtained a credible fear determination on February 14, 2025. At his removal hearing on June 12, 2025, Samiullah withdrew his applications for asylum and Convention Against Torture protection. An immigration judge ordered his removal to Afghanistan, and Samiullah waived appeal.
Beginning in August 2025, ICE learned that Afghanistan requires a transportation letter to receive returned nationals. ERO requested such a letter on September 12, 2025. As of June 2026—nine months later—no letter had been received and no alternative removal to a third country had been pursued. Samiullah remained in ICE custody, having been detained since June 2025, more than a year after his removal order became final.
On January 21, 2026, Samiullah filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). The government moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting Samiullah’s habeas petition. Under *Zadvydas v. Davis*, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), post-removal detention is presumptively reasonable only for six months; thereafter, an alien may be detained only upon a finding of a “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” The court held that Samiullah established his initial burden by demonstrating over nine months without progress—only a pending, unresponded travel letter request since September 2025, with no evidence of actual communication with Afghanistan since that date and no attempts at third-country removal.
The government failed to rebut this showing. The court rejected the argument that a pending travel letter request alone satisfies the government’s burden, citing recent Fifth Circuit and sister district decisions holding that mere administrative processing does not establish reasonable foreseeability of removal. The court noted no evidence that Afghanistan had ever issued a travel letter for any petitioner post-August 2025, and observed that ERO was “unaware” of the impact of the Iran conflict on removal prospects.
The court also rejected the government’s motion to dismiss based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. While 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(d)(1) permits an alien to request release from the Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit, it does not mandate such requests as a prerequisite to habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit has not addressed whether exhaustion is required in this context, and the statute’s permissive language (“may,” not “must”) defeated the government’s exhaustion argument.
Key Takeaways
- A pending travel document request alone, without evidence of progress or alternative removal pathways, is insufficient to satisfy the government’s burden under *Zadvydas* that removal is reasonably foreseeable.
- Prolonged post-removal detention exceeding nine months without meaningful progress toward removal violates due process when the alien demonstrates no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future and no special circumstances (terrorism, contagious disease, violent mental disorder) justify continued confinement.
- Administrative remedies—specifically, written requests to DHS Headquarters’ Post-Order Detention Unit—need not be exhausted before seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, despite the permissive regulatory language allowing such requests.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that *Zadvydas* imposes meaningful limits on indefinite post-removal detention. Immigration officials cannot justify prolonged confinement merely by pointing to pending administrative processes or unanswered requests to foreign governments. The opinion reflects growing judicial skepticism toward detention that stretches beyond practical removal timelines, particularly when foreign governments are unresponsive and no alternative removal mechanisms are explored. For Afghan nationals specifically, the decision signals that the government’s inability to obtain travel documents—whether due to governmental non-cooperation or diplomatic breakdown—does not indefinitely extend detention authority.
The ruling also clarifies that habeas petitioners need not exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, avoiding a trap that could extend confinement while an alien navigates internal agency procedures. This preserves meaningful access to federal courts for detainees challenging prolonged confinement.