Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Gregorio Pineda Nunez, a Venezuelan citizen, sought admission to the United States in 2023 and was paroled into the country after receiving a notice to appear. After his parole expired, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him and detained him during removal proceedings.
An immigration judge granted the government’s motion to pretermit Pineda Nunez’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture based on the United States’ Asylum Cooperative Agreement with Ecuador. The judge ordered him removed to Ecuador on January 26, 2026, and he waived an appeal, making the order administratively final. Ecuador later declined to accept him, but ICE continued his detention following a post-removal-order custody review while seeking to carry out his removal.
After approximately nine months in custody, Pineda Nunez petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his prolonged detention violated due process and that removal to a designated third country was not reasonably foreseeable. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. Under Zadvydas v. Davis, detention beyond six months after a final removal order is no longer presumptively reasonable, but passage of the six-month period does not itself require release. The detainee must first provide good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Although Pineda Nunez had been detained for 234 days, the court found that he did not meet that initial burden. He offered no sufficient evidence concerning his status, any individualized obstacle to repatriation to Venezuela or removal to another designated country, or ICE’s inability to execute his removal in the near future. Because his showing did not go beyond speculation, the burden never shifted to the government to rebut his claim.
The court therefore concluded that Pineda Nunez was not entitled to habeas relief at that time. It also denied any remaining pending motions as moot and stated that final judgment would issue separately.
Key Takeaways
- Post-removal detention lasting more than six months is not automatically unlawful or grounds for release.
- A detainee seeking relief under Zadvydas must present concrete, individualized evidence that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Ecuador’s refusal to accept Pineda Nunez did not, without evidence of broader barriers to removal to Venezuela or another designated country, establish that his detention would be indefinite.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the six-month benchmark established by Zadvydas changes the parties’ evidentiary burdens but does not create a firm detention deadline. A habeas petitioner must still substantiate the claim that removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
For immigration practitioners, the ruling highlights the importance of developing evidence specific to the client’s removal prospects, including failed repatriation efforts, diplomatic or documentation barriers, and facts showing that ICE cannot realistically secure acceptance by the destination country.