Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bladev David Lal, a lawful permanent resident admitted in 1986, was ordered removed to India by an immigration judge. The record is inconsistent on the date. The order and the government's filings say April 7, 2004, while petitioner and a deportation officer's report say April 4, 2007. The magistrate judge did not resolve the discrepancy, because on either date ICE held him for more than six months for removal purposes before releasing him on an order of supervision on December 18, 2007, when it could not remove him. ICE detained and released him on supervision again in 2013 for the same reason. After a 2025 conviction for burglary and a drug offense and a prison sentence, ICE took him into custody on May 26, 2026, upon his release from state prison. It issued a notice of revocation of release and a warrant of removal.
The notice said ICE was seeking a travel document to remove him to India, but the box stating that ICE has the ability and means to effect removal was not marked. Lal petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleged that India has issued no travel document during this detention, that no country has accepted him, and that the government has given no removal timeline, so detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) is unauthorized under Zadvydas v. Davis. The government conceded that it held him past the 90-day removal period but argued the detention was reasonable. It asserted, without documentation, substantial progress toward obtaining a travel document. This is a set of findings and recommendations in the Eastern District of California, referred to the assigned district judge, Troy L. Nunley, and is not a final ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that Zadvydas governs because the government conceded detention beyond the 90-day removal period. Relying on other district court decisions, including Aaron H. v. Chestnut and Sied v. Nielsen, the judge reasoned that the six-month presumptively reasonable period does not reset when the government releases and re-detains a noncitizen. Because the 2007 detention alone exceeded six months, the current detention since May 2026 falls beyond the presumptive period.
Once that period has passed, a petitioner need only give good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government must then rebut with evidence. The court found that Lal met his burden based on his statements that he had twice been released on supervision because removal to India could not be effected, that no travel document had issued, and that no country had accepted him. The government offered only a bare assertion of progress. It attached no documentation, identified no steps taken toward a travel document, did not explain why India previously refused repatriation, and gave no reason to expect a document soon. Citing Andreasyan, Islam, Khader and Mohamed, the judge held that a pending travel-document request without more is insufficient. The judge found no significant likelihood of removal, so continued detention is unlawful.
The government also submitted petitioner's criminal record. A footnote notes that the Ninth Circuit has held that dangerousness cannot justify indefinite detention under Zadvydas. The recommended relief is as follows: grant the petition; order immediate release subject to any previously imposed conditions; enjoin re-detention unless the government obtains a travel document for removal, if necessary, and follows 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i) and other applicable procedures; direct service on the facility; and enter judgment and close the case. Objections are due within three days of service.
Key Takeaways
- In this recommendation, the six-month presumptively reasonable period under Zadvydas does not reset when the government releases and re-detains a noncitizen held under § 1231.
- Once a petitioner gives good reason to believe removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the government must respond with actual evidence rather than conclusory statements of progress.
- A statement that a travel-document request is pending, with no documentation, steps taken, or timeline, was held insufficient to rebut the petitioner's showing.
- Dangerousness and criminal history do not justify indefinite detention under Zadvydas, and the court treated the government's rap sheet as irrelevant to the inquiry.
- The recommended injunction would bar re-detention unless the government obtains a travel document, if necessary, and follows the regulatory revocation procedures.
Why It Matters
These are findings and recommendations from a magistrate judge. They are not a final judgment, and no order of release takes effect unless the district judge adopts them. As a district court ruling, they carry no binding precedential weight. They illustrate how a court in the Eastern District of California applied Zadvydas to a re-detention after prior supervised releases, and the court cited other recent district decisions for the cumulative-period rule rather than any controlling authority.
Several matters remain open. The district judge must rule on the recommendations after any objections. The record never established the correct date of the removal order, though the judge found the date immaterial. The recommended injunction would not bar future detention if the government obtains a travel document for removal, if necessary, and follows the required regulatory procedures.