Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Genaro Lopez Pastor, a citizen and national of Guatemala, was subject to a final removal order that restricted the government from removing him to Guatemala. The government therefore sought to remove him to an alternate third country.
Pastor remained in administrative immigration custody for more than six months. The undisputed record showed that he refused an attempted removal to Mexico in September 2025 and later refused to sign another notice of removal to Mexico. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention exceeded the statutory and constitutional limits recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that Pastor could not invoke the six-month presumption established in Zadvydas because his own conduct caused the delay in removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C), the statutory removal period is extended when a noncitizen acts to prevent removal, and detention may continue during that period.
Because Pastor refused to cooperate and actively resisted removal to Mexico, the court concluded that he could not show there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court also denied his requests to transfer the case to the District of New Mexico or dismiss it so he could refile there, finding that transfer or refiling would disserve judicial economy after the case had been fully briefed and was ready for decision.
Key Takeaways
- The Zadvydas six-month presumption does not protect a detainee whose own obstruction prevents execution of a final removal order.
- Section 1231(a)(1)(C) extends the removal period when a noncitizen fails to cooperate or acts to prevent removal.
- A nearby custodial transfer did not justify moving or dismissing a fully briefed habeas case when doing so would undermine judicial economy.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes removal delays caused by the government’s inability to find a receiving country from delays caused by a detainee’s resistance. In the court’s view, only the former supports the reasonably foreseeable removal inquiry contemplated by Zadvydas.
The ruling also shows that courts may retain and decide a mature habeas case despite a detainee’s transfer to a facility in another district, particularly when transfer would duplicate judicial work and delay resolution.