Reported / Citable
Background
Hadi Najafi, an Iranian citizen, entered the United States without inspection in October 2023. After serving a five-month sentence for improper entry, he returned to ICE custody in May 2024. An immigration judge denied his asylum claim and ordered him removed to Iran in September 2024; neither side appealed.
ICE sought Iranian travel documents beginning in January 2025 and repeatedly followed up, but documents had not issued by an August 2026 status conference. Najafi filed this § 2241 habeas action after nearly a year of post-removal detention. The United States had also entered armed conflict with Iran in February 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad recommended granting Najafi’s amended habeas petition in part and ordering his release within 48 hours under supervision. The recommendation concluded that nearly two years of post-removal detention exceeded the six-month period presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis.
Najafi met his modest burden to show no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future because Iran had not supplied the necessary travel documents. The government did not rebut that showing: its continued efforts to obtain documents established diligence but did not provide evidence that removal was likely soon. The magistrate judge also recommended denying Najafi’s request for attorney’s fees because the Equal Access to Justice Act does not authorize fees for successful § 2241 habeas petitions, and granting his motion for prompt disposition.
Key Takeaways
- A pending travel-document request alone does not establish that removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- The government’s burden to justify continued detention increases as post-removal detention grows longer.
- Attorney’s fees are unavailable under the EAJA for a successful § 2241 habeas petition in the Fifth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies Zadvydas to an exceptionally prolonged detention where removal depends on documents from Iran. It underscores that ICE’s attempts to secure travel documents, without concrete evidence of an expected issuance or removal date, may not support further detention after the presumptively reasonable period has elapsed.
This is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court disposition. The parties had seven days to object, subject to modification by the district court.