Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Manoochehr Parham, an Iranian citizen, was subject to a removal order that became administratively final in April 2004. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into custody on December 10, 2025, to carry out the order, but he had not been removed by the time the court ruled.
Parham filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention had exceeded the six-month period deemed presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis. He asserted that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because the United States and Iran lacked diplomatic relations and ICE had not obtained the necessary travel documents despite his cooperation.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition. Because Parham had been detained for more than six months, the court applied Zadvydas’s burden-shifting framework. It found that the lack of diplomatic relations, ICE’s inability to obtain travel documents, and Parham’s cooperation established good reason to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The burden therefore shifted to the government, which conceded that recent hostilities with Iran prevented it from offering evidence that Parham’s removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court concluded that his continued confinement was no longer lawful and ordered his release from the Prairieland Detention Center on an order of supervision. It also directed the respondent to file notice after his release.
Key Takeaways
- Detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) is presumptively reasonable for six months but may not continue indefinitely.
- Specific barriers to repatriation—including unavailable travel documents and broken diplomatic relations—can satisfy a detainee’s initial burden under Zadvydas.
- Once that showing is made, the government must produce evidence rebutting it; here, the government conceded that it could not do so.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how courts apply Zadvydas when geopolitical conditions and documentation problems make removal uncertain. A detainee who identifies concrete, individualized barriers to removal can shift the evidentiary burden to the government after six months of post-order detention.
The ruling also shows that release under supervision—not continued detention—is the appropriate remedy when the government cannot establish a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.