Reported / Citable
Background
Aram Kafel Asmerom, a citizen of Eritrea, was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 1991 and became a lawful permanent resident. A 1997 aggravated assault conviction triggered removal proceedings, which concluded in 2000 with a grant of withholding of removal to both Eritrea and Ethiopia — meaning he could not lawfully be deported to either country. Over the following two decades he incurred additional convictions, primarily DWIs and misdemeanors, but reported no convictions since 2021 and was employed at Ceva Logistics at the time of his arrest. He has a U.S. citizen wife and child.
On November 25, 2025, Asmerom was detained by ICE during a routine check-in required under his Order of Supervision. By the time of this ruling he had been held for more than six months without removal having been accomplished. He has cooperated with ICE’s efforts to obtain travel documents, and no third country has agreed to accept him. The government acknowledged it could not remove him to Eritrea or Ethiopia and stated only that it was “working with several dozen countries” to find an alternative destination — without naming any specific country that had indicated willingness to accept him.
Asmerom filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention violated due process under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), because there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government moved for summary judgment, contending detention remained lawful.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and granted the habeas petition. Applying the framework established in Zadvydas, the court found that Asmerom’s detention had exceeded the six-month presumptively reasonable period and that he had met his burden of showing good reason to believe removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. His showing was non-conclusory: he demonstrated a withholding of removal barring deportation to his home countries, ICE’s inability to identify any specific third country willing to accept him, and his own consistent cooperation with document efforts.
The burden then shifted to the government to rebut that showing with sufficient evidence, and the court held it failed to do so. The government’s generalized assertion that it was “working with several dozen countries” was conclusory and insufficient under Zadvydas and persuasive district court precedent. The government did not name a single country that had agreed — or even been asked — to accept Asmerom, and a pending travel-document request alone does not satisfy the rebuttal burden.
The court ordered that by July 10, 2026, the government must either remove Asmerom from the United States or release him under the conditions of his prior Order of Supervision. The court further ordered that he may not be re-detained absent a material change in circumstances — such as a third country actually agreeing to accept him and Asmerom being given notice and an opportunity to object.
Key Takeaways
- Once post-removal detention exceeds six months, a detainee who has been granted withholding of removal and can show ICE has identified no third country willing to accept him has made a sufficient non-conclusory Zadvydas showing.
- Government assertions that it is “working with several dozen countries” without naming a specific willing destination are conclusory and insufficient to rebut a detainee’s Zadvydas showing.
- A pending travel-document request alone does not satisfy the government’s evidentiary burden to demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- A court may resolve a habeas petition on summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing when the material facts are undisputed and only legal questions remain.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the constitutional floor established by Zadvydas for individuals whose removal is structurally impossible — particularly those with withholding of removal orders who cannot be sent to their home countries and for whom no third country has stepped forward. The ruling signals that boilerplate government representations about ongoing diplomatic efforts will not satisfy the rebuttal burden when those efforts have produced no concrete result after six months of detention.
The case is also notable for its procedural posture: the court denied the government’s summary judgment motion and granted the detainee’s petition simultaneously, ordering release by a hard deadline of July 10, 2026. For immigration practitioners, the decision — alongside recent similar rulings in the Western District of Texas and Western District of Washington — reflects a growing body of district court authority holding ICE to a specific evidentiary standard when seeking to justify prolonged detention of individuals who face structural bars to removal.