Reported / Citable
Background
Firas Hassan Alnabhani is a Palestinian national born in Iraq who entered the United States on an F-1 student visa in February 2012. His student status was terminated in 2012 and 2013 due to non-enrollment. In April 2014, Alnabhani failed to appear at an immigration hearing and was ordered removed to Iraq in absentia. His motion to reopen—based on the claim that he had taken strong sleeping pills for back pain from a recent car accident—was denied in July 2024.
Alnabhani was classified as a member of the Hamama v. Adducci class, which temporarily enjoined his removal. His US citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him, approved in September 2020, but his applications for adjustment of status, work authorization, and travel documents were all denied in May 2021. In July 2025, he was arrested by Dallas police for deadly conduct, acquitted at trial, and transferred to ICE custody in November 2025 upon his release from state custody.
As of the hearing date in June 2026, Alnabhani had been detained by ICE for approximately seven months. Respondents had made no progress obtaining travel documents for his removal to Iraq or any other country, conceding that no removal requests had been submitted and no removal schedule exists. Although Alnabhani possesses a Palestinian passport, respondents acknowledged it is insufficient for removal and that Israel—the only country with capacity to issue an acceptable passport to a Palestinian—has not been issuing such documents.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the habeas corpus petition and ordering Alnabhani’s release under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Under Zadvydas, detention beyond the initial 90-day removal period is constitutional only if removal is reasonably foreseeable in the near term. While detention for six months is presumptively reasonable, detention beyond six months requires that removal remain reasonably foreseeable; otherwise, it violates substantive due process.
The court found that Alnabhani met his burden of showing “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Because he is a stateless Palestinian ordered removed to Iraq—a country of which he is not a citizen—he faces an insurmountable obstacle: he cannot obtain the travel documents necessary for removal. Respondents conceded that no travel documents have been requested on his behalf, no removal schedule is in place, and they possess no Iraqi passport for him. This situation creates the “potentially permanent detention” that Zadvydas prohibits.
The court rejected respondents’ argument that detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), holding that this statute must be interpreted consistently with constitutional due process protections. Because respondents provided no evidence to rebut Alnabhani’s showing of no foreseeable removal, and seven months had elapsed with no progress toward removal, the court recommended that he be ordered released under conditions compliant with statutory post-removal supervision requirements.
Key Takeaways
- Stateless detainees ordered removed to countries they are not citizens of may satisfy the Zadvydas burden to show no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Practical inability to obtain travel documents due to third-country policies (here, Israel’s refusal to issue passports to Palestinians) can make removal impossible, triggering due process release rights.
- Seven months of detention with no removal requests, no removal schedule, and no progress toward obtaining travel documents violates due process and justifies habeas corpus relief.
- The government must affirmatively work toward removal or release detainees; mandatory detention statutes do not override constitutional protections when removal becomes impossible.
Why It Matters
This decision addresses a gap in the immigration detention system for stateless and Palestinian detainees facing removal orders to countries they cannot access. By requiring the government to either make concrete progress toward removal or release detainees, the court prevents indefinite detention based on legal or diplomatic obstacles beyond a detainee’s control. The court’s broad reading of Zadvydas—treating practical impossibility of removal, not just legal barriers, as grounds for release—may significantly impact detention policies for other stateless or effectively-stateless persons.
The decision also reinforces that immigration detention statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) must be interpreted consistently with Fifth Amendment due process rights. This approach potentially affects numerous detainees in similar circumstances, particularly Palestinians and other stateless persons held in ICE custody. It creates an affirmative obligation on immigration authorities to demonstrate they are actively pursuing removal or to release detainees when removal becomes implausible.