Reported / Citable
Background
L.T.S., a Jordanian citizen and lawful permanent resident since 1995, was ordered removed to Jordan in absentia in 2019 based on a 2005 Texas controlled-substance conviction. ICE detained him for nearly six months beginning in September 2020, then released him under an order of supervision in March 2021. ICE revoked that order and detained him again on January 5, 2026, to carry out his removal.
Jordan issued a travel document in March 2026, and L.T.S. acknowledged that he would be removed there. His scheduled April 11 departure did not occur after he asked for personal belongings that he said were missing; he alleged that he shortly afterward agreed to leave without them but was told it was too late. In his habeas petition, L.T.S. sought release, arguing that removal was not reasonably foreseeable, that his renewed detention violated due process and the Accardi doctrine, and that he lacked notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest possible removal to a third country.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended denying the habeas petition and dismissing the case without prejudice. The report concluded that L.T.S.’s claim under Zadvydas v. Davis was premature because his current period of post-removal-order detention had not reached six months. His earlier, nonconsecutive detention could not be combined with the current period to satisfy the six-month benchmark.
The report further concluded that, even if the claim were not premature, L.T.S. had not met his initial burden to provide concrete reasons to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Jordan had previously issued a travel document and generally cooperated in removing its citizens. The third-country-removal claim was also unripe because nothing showed that ICE had begun seeking removal to a country other than Jordan.
Key Takeaways
- A Zadvydas challenge filed before six months of continuous post-removal-order detention is premature under the authorities applied in the report.
- Separate periods of immigration detention cannot be added together to reach Zadvydas’s six-month benchmark.
- Conclusory assertions that removal is unlikely do not satisfy the detainee’s initial burden, and a challenge to possible third-country removal is unripe before that process begins.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores the procedural and evidentiary hurdles facing immigration detainees who seek habeas relief before six months of continuous detention have elapsed. It also illustrates that evidence of a destination country’s cooperation—including its prior issuance of a travel document—can undermine a claim that removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
Because dismissal was recommended without prejudice, L.T.S. could bring a later habeas challenge if continued detention and changed circumstances eventually support a ripe claim.