Reported / Citable
Background
Yahya Safi, an Afghan citizen, was apprehended at the U.S. border in January 2025 and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Rio Grande Detention Center in Laredo, Texas. An Immigration Judge ordered his removal to Afghanistan (or alternatively an unspecified country) on September 25, 2025, which became administratively final. The statutory 90-day removal period expired December 24, 2025, and the six-month period recognized as presumptively reasonable in Zadvydas v. Davis expired March 24, 2026—at which point Safi had been detained for 180 days post-order finality and 427 days overall. By the time he filed his habeas petition on March 24, 2026, he had exceeded the constitutional detention threshold.
The government represented that removal to Afghanistan was impossible without a travel letter from the Afghan government, which had not been obtained despite a pending request. Third-country removal options were also unavailable—though the government mentioned the Central African Republic as a possibility, it had no plan to send Safi there and no other country had agreed to accept him. Safi presented no security risks: an asylum officer determined he would likely be tortured and killed by the Taliban if removed to Afghanistan due to his association with the previous Afghan government. He had no criminal history, no disciplinary infractions, family ties in the United States (four brothers who are lawful permanent residents), and posed no flight risk.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Safi’s habeas petition in part—specifically, ordering his immediate release. Under Zadvydas v. Davis, the court explained, detention beyond six months is not automatically unlawful, but a detainee may seek release by showing “good reason to believe that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Once the detainee meets this burden with concrete facts—not mere conclusory assertions—the government must rebut the showing with sufficient evidence.
The court found that Safi satisfied his initial burden. He identified specific, undisputed obstacles to removal: Afghanistan’s failure to issue required travel documents despite a pending request; the absence of any third country willing to accept him; and the complete absence of any cooperation failure, disciplinary infraction, or security concern on his part. The government could not rebut this showing. At the May 29, 2026 hearing, the government still had not obtained the Afghan travel letter and characterized removal to Afghanistan as subject to “an indefinite waiting period.” As for third-country removal, the government had made no arrangements and Safi had neither cooperated in nor obstructed his own removal. Consequently, the court concluded that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and Safi must be released.
The court also held that Safi’s remaining claims—including requests for declaratory relief, an order preventing third-country removal without further proceedings, and a Fifth Amendment due process claim—became moot or unripe upon his release. His request for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act was denied, as Fifth Circuit precedent bars such awards in habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Key Takeaways
- Detention beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month Zadvydas period requires the government to prove removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future; indefinite waiting for travel documents or third-country cooperation does not satisfy this burden.
- A detainee exceeding the six-month threshold who identifies concrete obstacles to removal—not mere duration—establishes good reason to believe removal is unlikely and shifts the rebuttal burden to the government.
- The government cannot rely on diplomatic channels with uncooperative countries or hypothetical third-country options when neither is presently available; indefinite waiting periods justify release subject to supervision.
- Absence of security concerns, disciplinary infractions, criminal history, family cooperation issues, or flight risk all weigh in favor of release under supervised conditions rather than continued detention.
Why It Matters
This recommendation addresses a critical gap in immigration detention practice: what happens when removal becomes practically impossible. Since the Taliban’s 2021 takeover of Afghanistan, the U.S. government has struggled to obtain travel documents from Kabul and secure third-country placements for Afghan nationals. The court’s decision holds that indefinite detention in such circumstances—potentially years beyond the statutory removal window—violates constitutional limits on executive detention power. By requiring the government either to achieve actual removal or to release the detainee subject to supervision, the court reinforces Zadvydas‘s core holding that the Constitution does not permit open-ended immigration detention as a substitute for removal.
The decision also clarifies that Zadvydas applies not only to cases where removal is theoretically possible but takes years, but also to cases where removal is currently impossible due to foreign government non-cooperation or the absence of willing third countries. It underscores that once a detainee identifies genuine obstacles and exceeds the six-month period, the government’s burden of proof is real—not a formality—and requires concrete evidence that removal is achievable, not merely hoped for. For Afghan nationals and others facing indefinite detention pending diplomatic cooperation, this recommendation may signal a shift toward release as the appropriate remedy.