Reported / Citable
Background
Oleksii V., a Ukrainian national, filed a habeas petition challenging his continued immigration detention. His removal order became final on November 20, 2025, and he had remained detained for approximately seven months when the magistrate judge issued her report and recommendation.
Because Oleksii could not return to Ukraine, the government needed to identify another country willing to receive him. More than six months after the removal order became final, it had not done so. The government reported that it was seeking travel documents for removal to Russia or another country and had earlier hoped to arrange a charter flight, but the projected timeframe had passed without removal.
The Court’s Holding
Applying Zadvydas v. Davis, the magistrate judge concluded that Oleksii had provided good reason to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government’s efforts to obtain travel documents and pursue removal did not rebut that showing because they did not establish that removal was imminent or identify a destination country.
The report also rejected reliance on the statutory provision extending the removal period for a detainee’s failure to cooperate. The government showed that Oleksii declined to sign a notice describing the consequences of noncompliance, but it presented no evidence that he actually failed to cooperate. Its own evidence indicated that he participated in an April 2026 interview and cooperated regarding potential destination countries.
The magistrate judge therefore recommended granting the habeas petition, denying the government’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, denying the remaining motions as moot, and ordering Oleksii released subject to supervision. This was a report and recommendation subject to objections and review by the assigned district judge, not a final merits judgment.
Key Takeaways
- After prolonged post-removal-order detention, the government must offer evidence showing a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future once the detainee makes the required initial showing.
- Good-faith removal efforts and the technical possibility of removal are insufficient when the government cannot identify a receiving country or provide a concrete, current removal timetable.
- Refusing to sign a notice does not, without evidence of actual noncooperation, justify extending the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C).
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates how Zadvydas limits post-removal-order detention when removal remains speculative. As detention continues, generalized assurances that officials are diligently pursuing travel documents carry less weight without concrete evidence that removal is likely soon.
It also underscores the distinction between a magistrate judge’s recommendation and a final district-court ruling: the proposed supervised release remained subject to objections and action by the assigned district judge.