Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aleksandr Sosnovskii was born in Belarus and raised in Russia. Immigration authorities detained him beginning in August 2024. An immigration judge ordered removal to Belarus and Russia but granted withholding of removal to Russia, leaving Belarus as the intended destination after administrative review ended in April 2026.
The practical removal plan then failed. Belarus denied a travel-document request because authorities lacked proof that Sosnovskii had ever held Belarusian citizenship. Immigration officials said they were exploring removal to a third country, but they did not identify a willing country or describe concrete steps taken toward that result. Sosnovskii sought habeas relief under the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas framework, which limits detention after a removal order when deportation is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Janis Sammartino granted the petition in part and ordered immediate release subject to appropriate immigration supervision. Once post-order detention extends beyond the presumptively reasonable period, a detainee can shift the burden by giving good reason to believe removal is not realistically approaching. The government must then rebut that showing with evidence rather than speculation.
Sosnovskii met his initial burden. The only identified destination had refused the travel document on a foundational citizenship problem, while removal to Russia was barred by withholding. Those facts distinguished the case from an ordinary delay in obtaining routine paperwork. They showed a structural obstacle to carrying out the order.
The government did not rebut that showing merely by stating that enforcement officers were seeking a third country. It supplied no selected country, acceptance indication, diplomatic progress, or other concrete evidence that another removal attempt would succeed. Because indefinite custody cannot rest on an abstract possibility, the court ordered release under conditions set by immigration authorities and required a status report confirming compliance.
Key Takeaways
- A final removal order does not authorize unlimited detention when actual removal is no longer significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- A foreign government’s denial of travel documents can be powerful evidence when it reflects disputed citizenship rather than a temporary processing delay.
- After the detainee makes the required showing, generalized statements that officials are exploring third-country removal may not satisfy the government’s rebuttal burden.
- Useful government evidence would identify concrete destinations, communications, travel-document progress, or facts making acceptance likely.
- Release under Zadvydas may include supervision conditions and does not erase the underlying removal order.
Why It Matters
California immigration practitioners handling post-order custody should distinguish between slow removal and removal with no workable destination. The record should include embassy responses, citizenship evidence, withholding restrictions, failed attempts, and the government’s specific next steps. Those details determine whether a court sees foreseeable execution or only a theoretical possibility.
The ruling also gives immigration authorities a clear evidentiary lesson: plans for third-country removal need factual support. When liberty turns on likelihood, a bare assertion of ongoing efforts is less persuasive than documented progress toward a country able and willing to receive the person.
The analysis is intensely factual and can change as diplomatic efforts develop. A later acceptance signal or documented travel plan could support detention even where the government initially lacked proof. Both sides should therefore preserve a dated record of every request, response, and proposed destination through the habeas proceeding.
That continuing record can also support a prompt renewed application if circumstances materially change.
Records matter.