Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SHAO LIN HUANG,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-01043-KG-JMR
DORA CASTRO, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Shao Lin Huang’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. 1, the Government’s Response, Doc. 11, and Petitioner’s Reply, Doc. 12. For the
reasons below, Petitioner’s habeas petition is granted.
I. Background
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States without inspection in
April 1991. Doc. 11 at 2. Petitioner has lived in Puerto Rico since his entry and has three children
who are United States citizens. Doc. 1 at 1. On October 2, 1996, the Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service issued an order to show cause and notice of hearing, as well
as an arrest warrant for Petitioner. Doc. 11-2. On August 24, 1998, Petitioner appeared before an
Immigration Judge for deportation proceedings and was granted voluntary departure until May 24,
1999. Doc. 11 at 2. Petitioner failed to comply with the voluntary departure order, which became a
final order of removal on May 25, 1999. Id.
Since the entry of the order of removal, Petitioner has been detained on two occasions: once
in 2005 and again in 2011. Doc. 1 at 2, 9. In both instances, Petitioner was released with
conditions. Id. On June 11, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested
Case 2:26-cv-01043-KG-JMR Document 13 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner for a third time and transferred him to the Otero County Processing Center, where he is
currently detained awaiting removal. Doc. 11 at 2.
Petitioner advances two challenges to his continued detention: (1) that the revocation of his
parole without notice and a bond hearing violates due process; and (2) that his removal is not
reasonably foreseeable and that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future. Doc. 1 at 8–16. The Government opposes the petition. Doc. 11.
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks “release from unlawful physical confinement.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas corpus review is available if a noncitizen is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
III. Analysis
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), when a noncitizen is ordered removed,
the Government must execute the removal within a 90-day “removal period.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1)(A). “During the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”
§ 1231(a)(2). As relevant here, the “removal period begins” when the removal order “becomes
administratively final.” § 1231(a)(1)(B).
Although the Government may continue to detain an “inadmissible” noncitizen beyond the
90-day removal period, see § 1231(a)(6), it may not detain them “indefinitely.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S.
at 699. A six-month detention is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 701. This presumptively
reasonable period does not begin until the noncitizen is detained. See Callender v. Shanahan, 281
F. Supp. 3d 428, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (stating that the presumptively reasonable period under
Zadvydas “could not have begun until [the petitioner] was detained by ICE”); see also Cheng Ke
Chen v. Holder, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1192 (N.D. Ala. 2011) (“Zadvydas time” cannot run “while
Case 2:26-cv-01043-KG-JMR Document 13 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
a petitioner is not in custody”). After six months, 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.” Zadvydas, 533 US. at
701.
Under these principles, Petitioner has met his burden of showing that there is no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See id. Petitioner’s removal became
final on May 25, 1999, but there is no evidence that the Government attempted to remove him until
June 2025. Doc. 1 at 13. In fact, since 1999, the Government has released Petitioner with
conditions of supervision twice. Id. at 2,9. Petitioner has been detained for just shy of one year—
well beyond the six-month period deemed presumptively reasonable by the Supreme Court.
The Government has produced little evidence to rebut Petitioner’s showing. The
Government states that it has obtained travel documents, but it has not submitted proof of a travel
document, proof of acceptance by China, proof of a scheduled removal, or any evidence that
Petitioner’s removal is reasonably foreseeable. See Lush Ndou v. Noem, 2026 WL 686564, at * 2
(D.N.M.) (concluding that “the completion of a pre-removal check” and assurance that
arrangements are being made “do not amount to a significant likelihood that Petitioner will be
removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Good faith efforts are not enough.”). The
Government does not state whether ICE has transmitted the travel document request to China or if
China received the request. Nor does it provide any information regarding the typical timeframe for
such requests or whether Petitioner’s case falls within that range. See e.g., Ye v. Bondi, 2025 WL
40334264, at * 5 (W.D. Okla.) (noting that “ICE’s internal process lacks sufficient specificity with
regard to Petitioner’s likelihood of removal”); Yan-Ling X. v. Lyons, 2025 WL 3123793, at * 4
(E.D. Cal.) (“The phrase ‘significant likelihood’ requires something more than a mere possibility
that removal will occur.”). In sum, the Government has not demonstrated that Petitioner will be
Case 2:26-cv-01043-KG-JMR Document 13 Filed 06/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Petitioner
is entitled to release from custody subject to reasonable conditions of supervision.
IV. Conclusion
Because the Court grants relief under the INA, it declines to address Petitioner’s other claims.
For the reasons above, the Court orders that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is granted. The Government shall release
Petitioner within 24 hours of this Order. The Government shall not impose any new
conditions of release beyond those in place prior to Petitioner’s detention.
2. The Government is enjoined from redetaining Petitioner absent a predetention hearing
before a neutral immigration judge under § 1226(a), at which the Government must
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.
3. The Government shall file a status report within 10 business days of this Order certifying
compliance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its authenticity,
please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the
NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing)
accompanying this document. Electronically
filed documents can be found on the Court’s
PACER public access system.
Case 2:26-cv-01043-KG-JMR Document 13 Filed 06/09/26 Page 4 of 4