Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joan Sivori Comin had remained in immigration custody for nearly a year while the government sought removal. The practical obstacle was whether another country—particularly Mexico—would accept a noncitizen who did not consent to removal there.
Under the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas framework, post-removal-period detention cannot continue when removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Once the detainee makes that showing, the government must rebut it with evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The district court granted habeas relief. Evidence that Mexico generally would not accept third-country nationals without consent, coupled with the absence of an identified alternative destination, showed no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The government supplied no evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. The court ordered release subject to appropriate supervision conditions established through applicable immigration procedures.
Key Takeaways
- A final removal order does not authorize limitless detention when removal cannot realistically occur.
- Country-acceptance evidence can establish the detainee’s initial Zadvydas burden.
- The government must respond with concrete evidence, not merely the continuing existence of a removal order.
- Release may be conditioned on supervision rather than being wholly unconditional.
Why It Matters
Immigration counsel should develop the real-world removal record: travel-document efforts, communications with possible destination countries, consent requirements, and any alternative-country plan. Those facts can be more important than the formal status of the removal order.
The decision offers a practical remedy for stalled removal while preserving government supervision. It also encourages prompt evidentiary testing instead of allowing custody to persist on speculative future possibilities.