Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ALIAN C.-L.,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.1
Case No. 26-cv-2335 (LMP/ECW)
ORDER GRANTING
HABEAS PETITION
Daniel P. Suitor, Daniel P. Suitor, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.
Ebony N. Thomas, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents.
Petitioner Alian C.-L. was ordered removed from the United States in June 2025.
But because both his home country and a third country refused to accept him, he remains
in immigration detention. Alian C.-L. argues that his continued detention violates his due
process rights. The Court agrees, so Alian C.-L.’s habeas petition is granted.
BACKGROUND
Alian C.-L. is a native and citizen of Cuba who entered the United States at the
southern border on October 22, 2021. ECF No. 6 ¶ 4. Immigration officers encountered
1 	The Court refers to Respondents as the “Government” in this Order.
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 9

2
Alian C.-L. shortly after his entry, served him with a notice to appear for removal
proceedings, and released him on an order of recognizance. 	Id. 	Alian C.-L. then began
residing in Yankton, South Dakota. ECF No. 1 ¶ 12.
After three convictions for driving while intoxicated and an arrest for an incident of
domestic violence, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Alian C.-L.
into custody on April 15, 2025, for removal proceedings. ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 5–11. On June 16,
2025, an immigration judge ordered Alian C.-L. removed to Cuba. 	ECF No. 6-3 at 3.
Alian C.-L. waived his right to appeal the immigration judge’s order, rendering his removal
order administratively final on June 16, 2025. Id. at 4; see 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(b) (explaining
that a removal order becomes final upon “waiver of appeal” by the noncitizen).
Removing Alian C.-L. from the United States has proven tricky for the Government.
Cuba has historically refused to accept its citizens ordered removed from the United States.
ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 2–3. 	On July 21, 2025, ICE learned that Cuba refused to repatriate
Alian C.-L. ECF No. 6 ¶ 14. ICE then pursued Alian C.-L.’s removal to Mexico, which
had begun accepting “many citizens” of countries where it was not possible or feasible to
remove those countries’ nationals. Id. ¶ 15. However, on October 12, 2025, ICE learned
that Mexico would not accept Alian C.-L. “for unknown reasons.” 	Id. ¶ 18. 	Officials at
ICE headquarters then advised ICE officials in Minnesota that they would seek “additional
third country options and provide updates as available.” Id. ¶ 19. Based on the record, it
does not appear that any updates on removal options for Alian C.-L. have been forthcoming
since October 2025.
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 9

3
Alian C.-L. has remained in immigration custody since April 15, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 10–
11. 	Federal law provides that a noncitizen ordered removed from the United States
generally 	must 	be 	removed 	within 	90 	days 	of 	a 	final 	removal 	order. 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1)(A). 	If a noncitizen is not removed within 90 days, ICE must conduct a
custody review to determine whether the noncitizen should be released from detention on
an order of supervision. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(h). ICE conducted that custody review for
Alian C.-L. and issued a “Decision to Continue Detention” on September 30, 2025,
determining that Alian C.-L. should remain in immigration custody because ICE believed
his removal to a third country was “likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” and
because his criminal history suggested “a threat to public safety if released.” ECF No. 6-5
at 1. The Decision to Continue Detention explained that ICE headquarters would conduct
another custody review in 90 days if Alian C.-L. remained in immigration detention. 	Id.
ICE officials in Minnesota provided all relevant case documentation to ICE headquarters
for that second custody review but, as of this date, ICE headquarters has not rendered a
decision on the second custody review. ECF No. 6 ¶ 20.
On April 22, 2026, Alian C.-L. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging
that his continued immigration detention violates his due process rights. See ECF No. 1.
The Court ordered the Government to respond to Alian C.-L.’s petition no later than
April 30, 2026, with any reply brief due by May 7, 2026. 	ECF No. 3. The Government
timely responded and opposed Alian C.-L.’s petition. ECF No. 5. Alian C.-L. timely filed
a reply brief. ECF No. 7.
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 9

4
ANALYSIS
“Congress has granted federal district courts, ‘within their respective jurisdictions,’
the authority to hear applications for habeas corpus by any person who claims to be held
‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’”
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(3)). 	The
protections of habeas corpus extend to those in immigration detention. See INS v. St. Cyr,
533 U.S. 289, 305–06 (2001).
Federal law provides that a noncitizen ordered removed must be detained during the
period necessary to effectuate the removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). But the Due Process
Clause does not allow that detention to go on indefinitely. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678, 690 (2001). In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that after a removal order becomes
final, the Government has six months to carry out the removal order. See id. at 701. After
that six-month period has expired, if the noncitizen provides “good reason to believe that
there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the
Government must respond with evidence “sufficient to rebut that showing.” 	Id. 	If the
Government cannot rebut that showing, then the noncitizen must be released, subject to
conditions and supervision prescribed by ICE. Id. at 699–700.
As an initial matter, the presumptively reasonable six-month detention period has
expired: Alian C.-L.’s removal order became final on June 16, 2025, ECF No. 6-3 at 3–4,
meaning his six-month detention period ended no later than December 16, 2025. Having
satisfied that threshold issue, Alian C.-L. must next provide “good reason to believe that
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 4 of 9

5
there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690.
Alian C.-L. does so. Not one, but two countries have refused to accept Alian C.-L.
Alian C.-L.’s native country of Cuba refuses to repatriate him. 	ECF No. 6 ¶ 14. 	Courts
have found no significant likelihood of removal where, as here, “the detainee’s country of
origin refuses to issue a travel document.” 	Ahmed v. Brott, No. 14-cv-5000 (DSD/BRT),
2015 WL 1542131, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 17, 2015), report and recommendation adopted,
2015 WL 1542155 (D. Minn. Apr. 7, 2015); see, e.g., Gholestani v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
No. CIV-25-1392-R, 2026 WL 1026975, at *4–5 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 13, 2026) (finding no
significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future when petitioner’s native country
refused to issue a travel document); Shefqet v. Ashcroft, No. 02 C 7737, 2003 WL 1964290,
at *4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2003) (same).
If that were not enough, the Government’s secondary option for removal—
Mexico—also refused to accept Alian C.-L., despite Mexico accepting “many citizens of
countries including Cuba” where it was “not possible or feasible” to execute removal. ECF
No. 6 ¶¶ 15, 18. 	Apparently Alian C.-L. is not among the “many” whom Mexico will
accept, which suggests that there is something about Alian C.-L.’s case that makes it
particularly difficult to facilitate his removal. 	The Government’s failed efforts at third-
country removal provides further good reason to believe that Alian C.-L.’s removal is not
significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. 	See Munoz-Saucedo v. Pittman,
789 F. Supp. 3d 387, 398–99 (D.N.J. 2025) (finding no significant likelihood of removal
in the foreseeable future when petitioner could not be removed to his home country and
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 5 of 9

6
third-country removal efforts proved unsuccessful during the initial 90-day removal
period); Doe v. Oddo, No. 3:25-CV-00353-RAL, 2026 WL 873011, at *2 (W.D. Pa.
Mar. 30, 2026) (finding similarly when two alternative countries refused to accept the
petitioner).
Having found good reason to believe that Alian C.-L.’s removal is not significantly
likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must now offer sufficient
evidence to rebut that conclusion. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. The Government first offers
the declaration of an ICE deportation officer, who attests that in October 2025, officials at
ICE headquarters “advised they would confer with [ICE] leadership on additional third
country options and provide updates as available.” ECF No. 6 ¶ 19. Without more, that
evidence is woefully insufficient to demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future. Courts regularly refuse to find that the Government meets
its burden under Zadvydas when the Government offers “little more than generalizations
regarding the likelihood that removal will occur” to a third country. Nguyen v. Scott, 796 F.
Supp. 3d 703, 725 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (collecting cases); Gholestani, 2026 WL 1026975,
at *5 (finding lack of any “substantial updates” as to a third country removal rendered
petitioner’s removal unlikely); M. A. v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00755-NYW, 2026 WL
809842, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 2026) (finding “vague statement” that “ICE is pursuing
Petitioner’s removal to alternative countries” provided “no meaningful information to the
Court and does not demonstrate that removal is likely”); Bernshtein v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
No. 3:25-cv-1153-JEP-PDB, 2026 WL 352907, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2026) (refusing to
credit Government’s “bare-bones allegation” that it is “continuing to explore third-country
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 6 of 9

7
removal options”). Indeed, seven months have passed since ICE headquarters officials said
they would explore additional third-country removal options, yet no updates appear to have
materialized. The Government does not even identify a country to which it is attempting
to seek Alian C.-L.’s removal, let alone the steps it has taken to seek third-country removal
and the reasonably foreseeable results of those efforts. 	As the wealth of case law cited
above makes clear, the Government’s vague generalizations about the potential for third-
country removal fall far short of carrying its burden under Zadvydas.
The Government next asserts that it has “not determined that there is no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” ECF No. 5 at 8. But that gets
things backwards: the Government now bears an affirmative burden to “respond with
evidence sufficient” to show that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future. 	Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. 	The Government relatedly
seems to believe that the fact that ICE headquarters has not conducted a second 90-day
custody review is a point in its favor, ECF No. 5 at 8, but that fact actually cuts against the
Government. That second review was due in late December 2025, ECF No. 6 ¶ 20; ECF
No. 6-5 at 1, and its months-long delay only confirms Alian C.-L.’s assertion that the
Government has taken no action on his case for months.
Finally, the Government argues that Alian C.-L.’s criminal history makes him a
safety risk to the public. 	ECF No. 5 at 9. 	Zadvydas recognized the potential for
preventative detention based on dangerousness, but “only when limited to specially
dangerous individuals and subject to strong procedural protections.” 533 U.S. at 690–91.
To that end, federal regulations implementing Zadvydas established a special process for
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 7 of 9

8
detaining noncitizens who “pose a special danger to the public.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(f). The
Government, however, has not elected to invoke that process to continue detaining
Alian C.-L.
Moreover, public safety concerns about Alian C.-L.’s release can be alleviated
through imposing conditions of release on him, as recognized by Zadvydas. 	533 U.S.
at 700. These conditions may include travel restrictions, reporting requirements, electronic
monitoring, and a requirement to remain law-abiding. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 241.5(a). 	If
Alian C.-L. violates any of those conditions of release, he “may no doubt be returned to
custody.”2 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700.
In sum, because Alian C.-L. has shown that his removal is not significantly likely in
the reasonably foreseeable future—a showing that the Government has not rebutted—
continued immigration detention violates Alian C.-L.’s due process rights. 	The Court
therefore grants his habeas petition and orders his release from custody.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Alian 	C.-L.’s 	Petition 	for 	a Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus 	(ECF 	No. 	1) 	is
GRANTED;
2. 	The Government is ORDERED to release Alian C.-L. from custody no later
than Wednesday, May 13, 2026, subject to conditions and supervision
prescribed by ICE; and
2 	The status of Alian C.-L.’s criminal proceedings in South Dakota related to an
incident of domestic violence is unclear, meaning that South Dakota authorities may also
seek to detain Alian C.-L. to complete those criminal proceedings. See ECF No. 6-6.
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 8 of 9

9
3. 	No later than Thursday, May 14, 2026, the Government is ORDERED to
provide a declaration affirming that Alian C.-L. was released from custody
in accordance with this Order.
Dated: May 8, 2026 	s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-02335-LMP-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/08/26 Page 9 of 9