Reported / Citable
Background
Arkadii Taganskii, a Russian national, entered the United States on May 5, 2024, seeking political asylum based on his opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He was detained upon arrival and placed in removal proceedings. In November 2024, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal to Russia — a protection that prevents deportation to his home country due to the risk of persecution — and the government declined to appeal, making the order final on December 22, 2024.
Despite holding withholding of removal, Taganskii remained in ICE custody as the government attempted to remove him to a third country. Officials submitted removal requests to the Netherlands, Bolivia, Georgia, El Salvador, Panama, and Costa Rica in 2025, but none agreed to accept him. In March 2026, the government planned to transfer him to Uzbekistan, but that removal was halted after Taganskii expressed fear of persecution there, triggering a credible-fear review by USCIS that remained pending with no known timetable for completion.
Taganskii filed a habeas corpus petition in January 2026, arguing that his detention — by then exceeding six months past his final removal order — was constitutionally unreasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). His counsel later withdrew, leaving him to proceed pro se. The government moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, contending that removal to a third country remained likely in the near future.
The Court’s Holding
Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. denied the government’s motion and granted the habeas petition in part. Applying the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework, the court found that Taganskii readily satisfied his initial burden: with approximately 18 months elapsed since his final removal order, failed attempts to place him in over 30 countries, and a USCIS fear-review process with no projected end date, he demonstrated good reason to believe removal was not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The burden then shifted to the government to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and the court found it had not met that burden. The government’s March 2026 motion offered only a general assertion that removal “is likely to take place in the very near future,” supported by a declaration that the credible-fear package had been submitted to USCIS but contained no timeline for review and no evidence of travel documents or confirmed acceptance by Uzbekistan. The court further noted that the government filed no updates in the three months since that filing, and that a showing of good faith efforts alone — expressly rejected in Zadvydas itself — is insufficient.
The court ordered Taganskii released from custody within 48 hours, subject to statutory supervision conditions. It also enjoined any removal or transfer during the present detention, required at least 12 hours’ advance notice to the petitioner and his contacts before release, directed the government to facilitate safe transit, and ordered the immediate return of all identification documents seized during detention.
Key Takeaways
- Under Zadvydas, detention beyond six months after a final removal order is presumptively unreasonable; the government must demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future — not merely good faith efforts — to continue holding a detainee.
- A grant of withholding of removal bars deportation to the home country but does not bar removal to a willing third country; however, if no third country can be identified, indefinite detention to await one violates due process.
- Pending administrative review processes (here, a USCIS credible-fear assessment for Uzbekistan) with unknown timetables do not satisfy the government’s rebuttal burden under Zadvydas, particularly where no travel documents or confirmed acceptance by the receiving country exist.
- Courts may impose detailed release conditions on the government, including notification of the detainee’s contacts, facilitation of safe transit, and return of identity documents — especially where the detainee proceeds pro se.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the constitutional ceiling on prolonged immigration detention for individuals who cannot lawfully be sent home but for whom no third country has agreed to accept removal. As the government increasingly pursues third-country removals for nationals of countries like Russia — where diplomatic and logistical barriers are substantial — courts applying Zadvydas will scrutinize whether removal is concretely achievable, not merely theoretically possible. Vague assurances that removal is imminent, unsupported by travel documents or firm country acceptance, will not carry the day.
The case also highlights procedural protections that district courts may layer onto release orders when a detainee is unrepresented, including affirmative obligations on the government to coordinate safe release logistics. Practitioners representing detained asylum seekers whose removal prospects have stalled should note that the combination of withholding of removal, multiple failed third-country placement attempts, and a pending USCIS review with no timeline presents a strong Zadvydas claim — even in the Southern District of Texas.