Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Siu Luen Ng, a Chinese citizen lawfully admitted to the United States in 1980, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371. She was ordered removed in March 2004 and did not appeal, making the removal order administratively final. She was later released under an order of supervision.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Ng during a scheduled immigration check-in on March 12, 2025. After approximately 18 months in custody, Ng sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that her prolonged detention violated due process because removal to China was not reasonably foreseeable. The government moved for summary judgment, asserting that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorized her continued detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Ng’s habeas petition. Applying Zadvydas v. Davis, the court recognized that Ng’s 552-day detention substantially exceeded the presumptively reasonable six-month period for post-removal-order detention. But exceeding six months did not automatically entitle her to release.
The court held that Ng failed to make the required initial showing of good reason to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. She presented no evidence concerning circumstances particular to her status, individual barriers to repatriation, ICE’s inability to remove her to China, or the prospect of indefinite detention. Because Ng did not carry that burden, the court did not decide whether the government had rebutted her showing, although it criticized the government’s briefing as “lackluster” for failing to provide a clear assessment of the likelihood of removal.
Key Takeaways
- Post-removal-order detention lasting longer than six months is not automatically unlawful under Zadvydas.
- A detainee must offer more than delay, speculation, or lack of visible progress and must identify concrete barriers making removal unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Because Ng failed to make that initial showing, the evidentiary burden never shifted to the government, despite the court’s criticism of its briefing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even lengthy immigration detention does not, by duration alone, establish entitlement to habeas relief. A petitioner challenging detention under Zadvydas must develop evidence tied to the practical likelihood of removal, such as country-specific obstacles, travel-document problems, or other individualized barriers to repatriation.
The court’s criticism of the government also signals that immigration authorities should provide a concrete, current assessment of removal prospects in § 1231 cases, even when the petitioner has not satisfied the initial evidentiary burden.