Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yeng Zheng, a Chinese citizen, applied for admission to the United States in 1996 and was ordered removed in May 1997. After initially being released under an order of supervision, she was detained again by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 11, 2025. Her removal order was final, and the issuance of a travel document remained pending as of July 22, 2026.
After approximately 15 months in custody, Zheng petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She argued that her prolonged detention violated due process because her removal to China was not reasonably foreseeable. The government moved for summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorized her continued detention and that removal remained reasonably foreseeable.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Zheng’s habeas petition. Although Zheng had been detained for 462 days—well beyond the six-month period considered presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis—the passage of time alone did not entitle her to release.
The court held that Zheng failed to make the required initial showing of good reason to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. She presented no evidence of circumstances specific to her status, individual barriers to repatriation, ICE’s inability to remove her to China, or a likelihood that her detention would become indefinite. Because Zheng did not carry that burden, the court did not decide whether the government’s evidence would have rebutted such a showing.
Key Takeaways
- Detention lasting longer than Zadvydas’s presumptively reasonable six-month period does not automatically require an immigrant’s release.
- A habeas petitioner must offer more than delay, speculation, or a lack of visible progress and must identify concrete circumstances or barriers showing that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Because Zheng failed to make the threshold showing, the burden never shifted to the government to rebut her claim.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that prolonged post-removal-order detention, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a Zadvydas violation. Even after lengthy detention, petitioners must produce individualized, nonconclusory evidence that removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For practitioners, the ruling highlights the importance of developing evidence about obstacles to obtaining travel documents, a destination country’s refusal or inability to accept the petitioner, or other case-specific barriers to removal.