Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Amin Zehra, a Pakistani citizen, attempted to enter the United States in 1999 using a fraudulent passport and was removed through expedited-removal proceedings. She reentered without inspection in 2002. After immigration authorities later placed her in proceedings, an immigration court granted her withholding of removal in 2006, and ICE released her under an order of supervision.
ICE took Zehra back into custody in November 2025. According to the government’s evidence, she twice declined custody-review interviews, declined to identify a third country for removal, refused to sign a warning for failure to depart, and refused to apply for necessary travel documents. ICE unsuccessfully sought to remove her to several countries and continued exploring other third-country options. Zehra petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that her detention beyond six months violated due process under Zadvydas v. Davis and that her arrest violated federal regulations.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the federal respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied Zehra’s habeas petition. It held that her continued detention did not violate Zadvydas because 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) authorizes extension of the removal period when a noncitizen refuses to cooperate with efforts to secure removal. The record showed repeated refusals to participate in the removal process, while Zehra supplied no documentation or other evidence supporting her assertion that she was willing to cooperate.
The court also rejected Zehra’s argument that ICE failed to provide the notice required when revoking her release under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4. It reasoned that even an unlawful arrest would not affect the legality of the detention that followed. The court separately granted Zehra’s motion to expedite its ruling and stated that final judgment would be entered for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- Detention exceeding six months is not automatically unlawful under Zadvydas when the detainee’s own noncooperation prevents removal.
- Refusing interviews, declining to identify a possible third country, and refusing to complete travel-document paperwork supported extending Zehra’s removal period under § 1231(a)(1)(C).
- An alleged regulatory defect in the arrest or revocation of supervised release did not establish that Zehra’s ensuing detention was unlawful.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Zadvydas’s six-month benchmark does not furnish habeas relief where the government shows that a detainee has obstructed efforts to carry out removal. In that setting, the court may treat the statutory removal period as extended without applying the ordinary burden-shifting inquiry over whether removal is reasonably foreseeable.
The ruling also underscores the evidentiary importance of cooperation: a detainee’s unsupported statement of willingness to cooperate may not overcome documented refusals to assist ICE with custody review and travel arrangements.