Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Marouane Guerfaoui,
Petitioner
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-410-SM-TSM
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 082
Warden, FCI Berlin, et al.,
Respondents
O R D E R
Marouane Guerfaoui is a civil immigration detainee from
Morocco. 	He is currently being detained pursuant to a final
order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. 	He brings this habeas
corpus petition asserting that his current prolonged detention
in ICE custody violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process
and that he is entitled to immediate release because “there is
no significant likelihood of [his] removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” 	Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701
(2001).
On June 5, 2026, the federal respondents filed an objection
to the petition (doc. no. 6), supported by the Affidavit of
Brian Sullivan, Acting Field Office Director for the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, and various exhibits to that
Case 1:26-cv-00410-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 6

2
affidavit (doc. no. 6-1). 	In that objection, respondents make
the following legal and factual assertions.
Petitioner is a native of the Kingdom of Morocco. 	On or
about August 7, 2008, he entered the United States at New York,
New York, as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure, with
authorization to remain until February 6, 2009. 	He overstayed
that visit and remained in the United States without
authorization beyond that date. 	While petitioner was in the
United States, multiple criminal charges were brought against
him, including, but not limited to, charges of shoplifting,
possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to
distribute a controlled substance, larceny, trespassing,
knowingly receiving stolen property, and assault and battery.
On or about July 25, 2025, ICE encountered petitioner and
took him into custody. 	That same day, he was issued a notice to
appear. 	Removal proceedings against him began roughly a month
later (on or around August 22, 2025), and he is currently
detained at FCI Berlin.
On October 31, 2025, petitioner was ordered removed to
Morocco. 	At the proceeding, petitioner withdrew his adjustment
of status application and the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied
Case 1:26-cv-00410-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 6

3
his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding
of removal under the Convention Against Torture. 	Petitioner
reserved his right to appeal his order of removal to the Board
of Immigration Appeals. 	That appeal was due on or before
December 2, 2025. 	But, petitioner never filed an appeal, which
rendered the IJ’s order of removal “final.”
On December 19, 2025, petitioner was served with a warning
for failure to depart, which advised him of the consequences of
hampering or failing to cooperate in the process of his removal
from the United States. 	Petitioner refused to sign the form and
informed the ICE officer that he did not have a passport or
identification document from Morocco. 	Based on that information
from petitioner, ICE started the process to obtain a travel
document for him from the Moroccan Embassy.
On or about January 29, 2026, petitioner was served with a
Notice to Alien of File Custody Review, which informed him that
his custody status would be reviewed on or around February 20,
2026, and that he could submit any documentation for ICE’s
review of his custody status. 	A few days later, ICE provided
petitioner with an application for travel documents to Morocco.
Petitioner refused to complete the application and was informed
that his failure to do so would be considered failure to comply
Case 1:26-cv-00410-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 Page 3 of 6

4
with the removal process as required by the final order of
removal.
On February 27, 2026, petitioner was served with a decision
to continue his detention. 	ICE’s decision informed petitioner
that he was a danger to the community and that ICE expected to
be in receipt of the necessary travel documents to remove him
soon, so his detention was necessary to effectuate his removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future. 	Petitioner then requested
a personal interview. 	That same day - February 27, 2026 - ICE
provided petitioner with a second travel document application to
Morocco for him to complete. 	This time, petitioner completed
the travel document application. 	Petitioner’s travel document
request was submitted by ICE to the Moroccan Embassy on or about
April 28, 2026.
On May 11, 2026, petitioner was notified that another
custody status review, which included a personal interview of
him (as requested), would occur in the near future. 	That
interview occurred approximately two weeks ago, on June 2, 2026.
During the interview, petitioner again denied that he had a
Moroccan birth certificate, voter registration card, certificate
of baptism, cedula (a government issued identity document),
national identity card, military identification card, passport,
Case 1:26-cv-00410-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 Page 4 of 6

5
or other travel documents for Morocco. 	He then refused to sign
the personal interview record. 	A post-custody review decision
is currently pending with ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
(“ERO”). 	A decision is forthcoming.
Meanwhile, even though petitioner denied having any travel
documents for Morocco, on or about May 26, 2026, ICE discovered
that petitioner did have a Moroccan birth certificate and a
Moroccan passport (although the passport was issued when he was
a minor). 	Those documents were submitted to the Moroccan
Embassy to supplement the previous travel document request.
On June 3, 2026, the Moroccan Embassy conducted a telephone
interview with petitioner to determine his identity. 	Petitioner
initially refused to participate in the interview but ultimately
acquiesced and completed the interview. 	The following day, the
Moroccan Embassy contacted ERO and informed them that petitioner
had to complete an application for a travel document in order
for him to be removed to Morocco. 	Respondents have represented
that they expect that once petitioner successfully completes
that application, a travel document will issue and petitioner
will be removed to Morocco shortly thereafter.
Case 1:26-cv-00410-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Petitioner has not responded or otherwise disputed
respondents’ factual or legal claims.
Conclusion
In light of the factual representations made by the federal
respondents, it does not appear that petitioner is entitled to
the relief he seeks under Zadvydas - that is, he cannot
demonstrate that “there is no significant likelihood of removal
[to Morocco] in the reasonably foreseeable future.” 	Id., 533
U.S. at 701. 	Indeed, it would seem that his removal to Morocco
is imminent (or will be, once his non-cooperation is no longer
an obstacle). 	Finally, it appears that petitioner has been
provided with appropriate custody reviews pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.4(c).
Accordingly, the court will deny the petition and close the
case on July 15, 2026, unless petitioner shows cause why it
should remain open.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
June 18, 2026
cc: 	Marouane Guerfaoui, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00410-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 Page 6 of 6