Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Miguel Angel Lopez, a citizen and national of El Salvador, remained in immigration custody for more than six months after an immigration judge ordered his removal. Because El Salvador refused to accept him, the federal government sought to remove him to Mexico.
The government alleged, and Lopez did not dispute, that he repeatedly refused to cooperate with removal to Mexico. He declined to sign third-country removal documents in February 2026, again refused to cooperate the following day, and reiterated in October 2026 that he would not sign documents effectuating his removal. Lopez 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 the Zadvydas framework does not entitle a detainee to release when the detainee’s own conduct is causing the delay in removal. Unlike the petitioners in Zadvydas, whose removals were impeded by circumstances beyond their control, Lopez actively resisted the government’s efforts to remove him.
The court further held that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) suspended the statutory removal period because Lopez acted to prevent his removal by refusing to sign the necessary documents. As a result, he could not make the threshold Zadvydas showing that there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court concluded that his continued detention violated neither federal law nor the Constitution, denied all pending motions as moot, and ordered the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- The six-month presumption recognized in Zadvydas addresses the government’s inability to accomplish removal, not delay caused by a detainee’s obstruction.
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C), the removal period is extended when a detainee refuses to obtain necessary documents or otherwise acts to prevent removal.
- A detainee who repeatedly refuses to cooperate with removal cannot establish that removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future based on the resulting delay.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes prolonged detention caused by governmental inability to secure removal from detention prolonged by a noncitizen’s own resistance. In the latter circumstance, the six-month Zadvydas benchmark does not, by itself, establish a viable claim for release.
The ruling also underscores the importance of the statutory tolling provision in post-removal-order habeas cases: documented noncooperation can suspend the removal period and defeat the detainee’s threshold claim that continued custody has become unlawful.