Reported / Citable
Background
Aleksandr Snetkov was born in the Soviet Union in what is now Moldova and entered the United States as a refugee in 1997. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Moldova in 2007, but Moldovan authorities repeatedly refused to issue travel documents because he is not a Moldovan citizen. ICE released him under orders of supervision several times, most recently in 2011.
Snetkov consistently reported to ICE and had no further involvement with the criminal justice system after 2011. Nevertheless, ICE detained him at a required reporting appointment in November 2025. Moldova again denied a travel-document request, and ICE had not identified another country willing to accept him after seven and a half months of detention. Snetkov sought habeas relief, arguing that his continued detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) as construed in Zadvydas v. Davis, as well as his Fifth Amendment rights.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting the habeas petition in part. Applying Zadvydas, the judge concluded that Snetkov had shown good reason to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. He had been detained beyond the six-month presumptively reasonable period, Moldova had rejected travel-document requests three times, and the government conceded both that he was not a Moldovan citizen and that no third country had been identified.
The government failed to rebut that showing with evidence that removal was reasonably foreseeable. The magistrate judge therefore recommended that the district court order Snetkov’s release under conditions satisfying 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3), preferably reflecting his prior supervision terms. The recommendation did not reach his Administrative Procedure Act or procedural-due-process claims and recommended denying his request for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Key Takeaways
- Post-removal detention becomes constitutionally problematic after six months when the noncitizen shows no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Repeated refusals by the designated country, statelessness, and the absence of an identified third country supported Snetkov’s claim that removal was not reasonably foreseeable.
- The magistrate judge recommended supervised release, not cancellation of the underlying removal order, and recommended denying attorneys’ fees and costs.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that the government cannot justify indefinite post-removal detention merely by stating that it is searching for another country. Once a detainee makes the showing required by Zadvydas, the government must offer concrete evidence that removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
It also underscores the importance of procedural posture: this document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to the district judge, rather than a final merits judgment by the district court.