Reported / Citable
Background
Abdal Jaber Ali, a Palestinian national from the West Bank, entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visa in November 2014 that expired April 30, 2015. He overstayed and applied for asylum in February 2018, which was denied. His removal proceedings were dismissed without prejudice in September 2023. In July 2025, state criminal charges for assault on a family member were filed against Ali; Harris County District Court dismissed those charges on September 21, 2025. That same day, ICE took custody of Ali and initiated new removal proceedings.
On February 6, 2026, an Immigration Judge ordered Ali removed to Palestine. Ali did not appeal within 30 days, and the removal order became administratively final on March 10, 2026. An Immigration Judge had previously set his bond at $15,000 (October 2025), which Ali could not afford, so he remained in custody. By the time Ali filed his amended habeas petition in June 2026, he had been detained for nearly ten months, including just over four months since his removal order became final.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the framework established in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which holds that the government may detain noncitizens following a removal order only while removal is “reasonably foreseeable.” Although Zadvydas creates a six-month presumption that post-removal detention is constitutional, that presumption is rebuttable. A detainee can overcome the presumption before six months elapse by demonstrating that removal is not foreseeable.
The court found Ali had successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that removal to Palestine is not reasonably foreseeable. The court emphasized that “given the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the general difficulty of effectuating removal of Palestinian nationals to Israeli occupied territory since October 7, 2023,” removal is objectively unlikely. Notably, ICE must obtain a transit visa from Israeli authorities to remove a Palestinian national to the West Bank—a step the government had not yet taken or shown was likely to succeed.
The burden then shifted to the government to demonstrate that removal was reasonably foreseeable. The court rejected the government’s arguments: its possession of a valid Palestinian passport does not guarantee Israeli authorities will permit transit; statistics about 28 removals in 2024 did not differentiate between removals of Israeli nationals (to Israel, requiring no transit visa) versus Palestinian nationals (to the West Bank, requiring Israeli cooperation); and recent geopolitical developments—including resumed U.S. strikes on Iran—”raising serious doubts about the viability of deportation flights to Israel/Palestine in the foreseeable future.” Finding no basis to conclude removal was reasonably foreseeable, the court granted the habeas petition.
Key Takeaways
- The six-month presumption of reasonableness under Zadvydas for post-removal-order detention is rebuttable before the six months elapse if a detainee shows removal is not foreseeable.
- Geopolitical realities and country-specific obstacles to deportation (including requirements for third-party cooperation) are relevant to whether removal is “reasonably foreseeable.”
- Government statistics on removals must be sufficiently granular; aggregate data combining removals to different countries or circumstances may not adequately address whether a specific individual’s removal is feasible.
- Indefinite detention following a removal order, when removal has become practically impossible, violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Why It Matters
This decision applies Zadvydas to recognize that practical geopolitical obstacles can render removal sufficiently unfeasible that continued detention becomes unconstitutional, even before the six-month presumption expires. The ruling is significant for Palestinian nationals and others whose countries face territorial conflicts, border closures, or other barriers to accepting deportees. It establishes that courts may intervene based on real-world impediments to removal rather than waiting for arbitrary time thresholds.
The decision also sets a meaningful evidentiary bar for the government to overcome the presumption of unreasonableness. Broad statistics, theoretical possibilities, or unimplemented removal efforts do not suffice; the government must show actual, demonstrable progress toward removing the detainee. For immigration practitioners and advocates, this case suggests that challenges to detention based on removal impossibility need not wait until six months have passed and that country-specific evidence regarding deportation obstacles can be dispositive.