Reported / Citable
Background
Milad M.R., an Iranian national, entered the United States in January 2025 and sought asylum and withholding of removal based on his fear of returning to Iran. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Iran on August 13, 2025, but withheld removal to Iran and designated no alternative country. The order became administratively final that day.
Immigration authorities continued detaining Milad while seeking a third country willing to accept him. Canada, Panama, Costa Rica, Brazil, Turkey, and Honduras were contacted; at least Panama, Costa Rica, and Turkey declined, and no country had agreed to accept him. Milad petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his detention exceeded the presumptively reasonable six-month period recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis and that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government sought summary judgment, citing its continuing removal efforts and Milad’s alleged lack of cooperation.
The Court’s Holding
In a report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt concluded that Milad had exhausted available administrative remedies and had met his initial burden under Zadvydas. His detention had continued for more than six months after the removal order became final, he could not be removed to Iran, he lacked legal status elsewhere, and repeated efforts had not identified a third country willing to receive him.
The magistrate judge found that outstanding requests to third countries did not establish a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The report declined to decide whether Milad’s alleged conduct extended the statutory removal period, reasoning that he could challenge the constitutionality of his detention after six months regardless. It recommended granting the habeas petition, releasing Milad under appropriate supervision, and denying the government’s summary-judgment motion. The report did not reach his separate challenge concerning removal to a third country without an opportunity to present a fear-based claim.
Key Takeaways
- Detention beyond six months is not automatically unlawful, but a detainee may obtain relief by showing that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Requests asking third countries to accept a detainee, without evidence that any country is willing to do so, were insufficient to rebut Milad’s showing under Zadvydas.
- The ruling is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final order; the parties have 14 days after service to file specific objections.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that governmental diligence alone does not justify prolonged post-removal-order detention. When removal to the country of origin is withheld and no third country has agreed to accept the detainee, the government must provide evidence supporting a reasonably foreseeable removal rather than rely solely on pending outreach.
It also distinguishes release from cancellation of a removal order: Milad would remain subject to the removal order and conditions of supervision even if the district judge adopts the recommendation.