Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Saidou Diallo, a native of Mauritania, was detained by ICE at or near the border in July 2023 and released on his own recognizance. On March 18, 2026, an immigration judge issued a removal order directing his removal to Uganda. No appeal was taken to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and, according to the government, the order became administratively final on April 17, 2026. ICE re-detained him on or about April 27, 2026. The record reflects no known criminal history, and the government did not contend that he poses a danger to the community or a flight risk if released.
Diallo proceeds on a first amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) is unlawful. He seeks immediate release under reasonable supervision or, alternatively, procedural relief requiring review of his custody. He submitted information that ICE tried and failed to execute his removal order on June 16, 2026, and again on August 12, 2026.
The government answered that he is properly detained under section 1231 and has not shown removal is unlikely. It stated that he told ICE he wants to be removed to Mauritania, that the order naming Uganda must be changed, that DHS would file a motion to reopen, and that ICE would remove him soon after a new order issued. An October 30, 2026 status report confirmed he remained detained.
The Court’s Holding
The document is an order and findings and recommendations, not a final judgment. The magistrate judge granted Diallo's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is an order, but only recommended that the petition be granted. Under Zadvydas v. Davis, detention for up to six months after a final removal order is presumptively reasonable. After that, once the detainee provides good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut the showing.
Diallo had been detained for more than six months. The court found that a removal order naming Uganda, which is not his native country, together with two failed removal attempts, satisfied his showing, noting that the good-reason standard is not a very high bar. It acknowledged that the lack of a certain end date does not by itself make detention indefinite, but found a specific barrier here. As of August 24, 2026, the government said the order still had to be changed to reflect Mauritania, and the immigration court's automated case information still showed a last decision date of March 18, 2026 with no future hearings.
The government did not carry its burden. Its statements were conclusory, and the court had no indication of a timeline for removal to Uganda, Mauritania, or any other country. The court therefore concluded that detention is not permitted by the INA as construed in Zadvydas. It recommended that respondents be ordered to release Diallo immediately under appropriate conditions of supervision and that judgment be entered for him and the case closed. Objections are due within seven days of service, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- Once the presumptively reasonable six-month period has passed, a detainee need only provide good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future before the burden shifts to the government.
- Here, a removal order naming a country other than the detainee's native country, combined with two failed removal attempts, met that threshold.
- Assurances that a motion to reopen will be filed and removal will follow are conclusory when they lack evidence about the expected timing of removal.
- The recommendation has not been adopted and does not itself order release; the district judge must act after the objection period.
- Release is recommended under supervision conditions, so the government's ability to pursue removal, including to Mauritania after any reopening, is not resolved.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's recommendation in a district court case, not a published appellate decision, so it carries only persuasive weight and may be modified or rejected by the assigned district judge. It applies Zadvydas in the Eastern District of California alongside other recent decisions, including Alaa Q.A. and Kozlova, that require the government to show why removal is significantly likely, including insight on timing.
What remains open is whether the district judge adopts the recommendation, what supervision conditions apply, and whether the government can later complete removal after any reopened proceedings. The order does not hold that removal is legally barred.