Reported / Citable
Background
Arthur Gelman, a native of Uzbekistan who immigrated to the United States as a child and later became a lawful permanent resident, was ordered removed in 2002 after a drug-possession felony conviction. Uzbekistan declined to issue travel documents after determining that Gelman had lost Uzbek citizenship under a 1992 passport law. Russia also declined to issue documents in 2012.
Immigration authorities renewed removal efforts after later criminal arrests, but Gelman was repeatedly released on immigration bond when travel documents could not be obtained. ICE detained him again in October 2025. Uzbekistan again denied travel documents in March 2026, and the outcome of a renewed request to Russia was unknown. ICE regarded Gelman as stateless and was seeking State Department assistance with possible third-country removal.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad recommended granting Gelman’s § 2241 habeas petition and ordering his release within 48 hours under supervision. The recommendation does not invalidate Gelman’s removal order; it addresses only the legality of his continued post-removal-order detention.
Gelman had been detained for more than six months, triggering the framework of Zadvydas v. Davis. His evidence of more than two decades of unsuccessful efforts to secure travel documents, including another denial during his current detention, supplied good reason to believe removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The magistrate judge concluded that ICE’s pending requests for State Department assistance and confirmation of Uzbekistan’s willingness to accept Gelman as stateless did not rebut that showing.
Key Takeaways
- This is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court order; the parties had five days to object.
- After six months of post-removal-order detention, the government must produce evidence rebutting a detainee’s supported showing that removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
- Pending requests for travel documents or third-country assistance alone did not justify continued detention here.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that prolonged ICE detention cannot rest on speculative prospects of removal. Where a detainee has a long record of failed repatriation efforts, the government needs concrete evidence of an imminent or realistically foreseeable removal path to continue custody under Zadvydas.