Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Getahun Zerabruk, an Eritrean citizen, unlawfully entered the United States on January 8, 2025, and was placed in expedited removal proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security and an immigration judge determined that he lacked a credible fear of returning to Eritrea, and his removal order became final on April 15, 2025.
After remaining in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for approximately 20 months, including 520 days after the removal order became final, Zerabruk petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that his prolonged detention violated due process because removal to Eritrea was not reasonably foreseeable. The government moved for summary judgment, asserting that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorized his continued detention and that removal remained reasonably foreseeable.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Zerabruk’s habeas petition. Although his post-removal-order detention substantially exceeded the six-month period considered presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis, the court held that the passage of time alone did not establish entitlement to release.
Zerabruk was required to provide good reason to believe that there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court found that he offered no evidence concerning circumstances specific to his status, individual barriers to repatriation to Eritrea, ICE’s inability to execute the removal order, or the prospect of indefinite detention. Because he did not make that initial showing, the burden never shifted to the government to rebut his claim.
Key Takeaways
- Post-removal-order detention exceeding six months does not automatically require an immigrant’s release.
- A habeas petitioner must offer more than delay, speculation, or a lack of visible progress to show that removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
- Because Zerabruk produced no evidence of individualized barriers to removal, the court did not evaluate whether the government could rebut his claim.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that lengthy detention, even well beyond Zadvydas’s presumptively reasonable six-month period, is not by itself enough to obtain habeas relief. A detained person must present concrete, individualized evidence showing that removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For practitioners, the ruling highlights the importance of developing evidence about obstacles to repatriation, including country-specific impediments, failures to obtain travel documents, or other facts demonstrating that ICE cannot execute the removal order in the near future.