Reported / Citable
Background
Nishtman Izadi, an Iranian national, arrived in the United States in November 2024 seeking asylum, having fled Iran after converting from Islam to Christianity — a capital offense under Iranian law. She was detained on arrival and remained in custody throughout her removal proceedings. In June 2025, an immigration judge granted her withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, barring her removal to Iran. She nonetheless remained detained until May 11, 2026, when the Western District of Louisiana granted her habeas petition and ordered her released under supervised conditions.
Just five days after her release, ICE re-detained Izadi, claiming she had violated her release terms by residing at an address other than the one listed in her Order of Release on Supervision (OSUP). The purported violation turned out to be mistaken: when Izadi submitted her actual OSUP at the subsequent hearing, it listed both the Pulitzer Place and Creciente Way addresses as permissible residences. Respondents’ counsel admitted they had not reviewed the OSUP before re-detaining her and offered no further evidence of a violation.
While in renewed detention, Izadi was transferred repeatedly among facilities in Texas, California, and Arizona before being moved to Louisiana. ICE had scheduled her for removal to the Central African Republic — a country with which she has no ties — based on diplomatic assurances against persecution, without ever informing her of the destination or offering her an opportunity to express a fear of persecution there. Izadi identified Costa Rica as a preferred country of removal, supported by a letter from a Quaker community in Monteverde offering to sponsor her resettlement. Her sister mailed a habeas petition to the Western District of Texas on May 23, 2026, while ICE’s own detainee locator still showed Izadi housed at ERO El Paso.
The Court’s Holding
The court first addressed jurisdiction, finding it proper despite Izadi’s subsequent transfers out of the Western District of Texas. Because Izadi’s sister filed the petition in good faith relying on the ICE Detainee Locator — the best available information at the time — the “unknown custodian” exception applied, and the court retained jurisdiction to prevent the “Kafkaesque specter” of a detainee wandering endlessly from forum to forum while the government transferred her repeatedly. The Western District of Louisiana’s refusal to entertain a parallel enforcement motion reinforced the appropriateness of maintaining jurisdiction here.
On the merits, the court held that the government must follow the statutory sequencing of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2) when selecting a country of removal. Under that provision, the government is required to first attempt removal to a country designated by the noncitizen before turning to other options, including any country willing to accept the alien. Respondents’ own counsel conceded this point and acknowledged that no internal policy memorandum can override a statutory mandate. Because Izadi had designated Costa Rica and a sponsor there was willing to accept her, the government was ordered to formally inquire with Costa Rica before proceeding with removal to the Central African Republic. All questions about what process — including any fear-of-removal interview — is required before removal to the Central African Republic were held in abeyance pending Costa Rica’s response.
On detention, the court found Izadi’s re-detention unlawful. Her OSUP plainly authorized residence at both addresses; Respondents had no evidence of any actual violation. The court ordered her released under reasonable supervision conditions by June 16, 2026, and modified its existing anti-removal injunction to permit removal to Costa Rica only, leaving all other removal stays in effect.
Key Takeaways
- Courts retain habeas jurisdiction when the government’s repeated transfers of a detainee make it impossible to identify the correct forum at filing; reliance on the ICE Detainee Locator satisfies the “good faith” filing requirement under the unknown-custodian exception.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2) requires the government to attempt removal to a country designated by the noncitizen before selecting any other third country, including one that has provided diplomatic assurances — an internal policy memorandum cannot override this statutory sequence.
- Re-detention based on a claimed OSUP violation that is flatly contradicted by the face of the OSUP itself violates 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) and any underlying court order mandating supervised release; the government’s failure to review the actual release document proved fatal to its position.
- A CAT withholding grant bars removal to the designated country of persecution only; the government retains authority to remove the noncitizen elsewhere, but must follow statutory country-selection procedures.
Why It Matters
The decision is a significant check on the government’s practice of removing noncitizens with CAT withholding to unfamiliar third countries without notice or process. By enforcing the statutory preference for alien-designated countries, the court reaffirmed that § 1231(b)(2)’s sequencing is mandatory, not advisory — a ruling that bears directly on the growing wave of third-country removal cases arising from aggressive immigration enforcement. Respondents’ concession during oral argument that statutory text controls over internal policy memoranda may prove consequential in parallel litigation nationwide.
The jurisdiction ruling is equally notable. As the government continues the practice of rapidly transferring detainees across district lines — sometimes within days of a petition being filed — courts are developing a coherent body of law permitting petitioners to rely on publicly available locator information when choosing a forum. This decision adds to that emerging consensus and explicitly invokes the principle that there must be “no gap in the fabric of habeas” — no moment when a person in U.S. custody cannot access a court to hear their case.