Reported / Citable
Background
Jorge Arias Martinez, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1993 and was later convicted of several crimes. In 2019, an immigration judge ordered him removed but granted deferral of removal to the Dominican Republic under the Convention Against Torture. He was released under an order of supervision.
ICE took Arias Martinez back into custody on November 13, 2025, and pursued removal to a third country. By April 2026, several countries had refused to accept him, and none had agreed to do so. While his habeas petition was pending, Arias Martinez moved in September 2026 for expedited disposition, reporting that he remained detained. The government sought summary judgment and did not dispute that no third country had accepted him or that he had complied with its requests.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the government’s summary-judgment motion and granted habeas relief. Applying Zadvydas v. Davis, the court held that Arias Martinez’s detention—more than 11 months by the time of decision—had exceeded the six-month period considered presumptively reasonable. His CAT deferral barred removal to the Dominican Republic, ICE had identified no third country willing to accept him, and nothing indicated that he had failed to cooperate. Those circumstances gave good reason to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The burden therefore shifted to the government, which failed to rebut that showing with sufficient evidence. General assertions that removal was likely did not establish that any identified country would accept Arias Martinez within a reasonably foreseeable period. The court concluded that his continued detention violated due process and ordered the government either to remove him or release him by 5:00 p.m. on November 24, 2026.
If released, Arias Martinez must be placed under the conditions of his previous order of supervision. The court also prohibited renewed detention absent a material change in circumstances, such as documents being ready, a third country agreeing to accept him, and notice and an opportunity to object to the proposed third-country removal.
Key Takeaways
- Detention lasting beyond six months is not automatically unlawful, but it triggers the Zadvydas framework when the noncitizen provides concrete reasons that removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
- A CAT deferral barring return to the home country, the absence of any willing third country, and the detainee’s cooperation satisfied the petitioner’s initial burden.
- Generalized assurances that removal remains likely were insufficient to rebut the petitioner’s showing without evidence that a specific third country would accept him.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden the government faces when it detains a noncitizen for an extended period despite being unable to remove him to his home country. Once the detainee makes a fact-specific showing that third-country removal is not reasonably foreseeable, officials must provide more than predictions or descriptions of continuing efforts.
The order also sets concrete limits on re-detention: ICE must demonstrate materially changed circumstances tied to a viable removal, while providing notice and an opportunity to object to the proposed destination.