Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-00480

#1

Jan 22, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 9662), filed by Maher Almanti. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt, # 3 Copy of Envelope).(tt) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

Jan 22, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Farrer. (tt)

Jan 22, 2026

THIS CASE HAS BEEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JASON K. PULLIAM. (tt)

#2

Jan 28, 2026

Case Opening Letter to Maher Almanti. (tt) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

Jan 28, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

Jan 28, 2026

Remark (No Doc#)

#3

Feb 03, 2026

Order

#4

Feb 03, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#5

Feb 10, 2026

Extension of Time to File Answer

#6

Feb 11, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Feb 11, 2026

Response

Feb 12, 2026

Text Order DISMISSING AS MOOT 5 Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer entered by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ks1)

Feb 12, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

#8

Mar 23, 2026

Advisory to the Court

#9

Mar 31, 2026

Advisory to the Court

#10

Apr 08, 2026

ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Maher Almanti. (vl) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#11

Apr 17, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#12

Apr 27, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#13

May 07, 2026

Advisory to the Court

#14

May 22, 2026

Advisory to the Court

#15

Jun 25, 2026

Advisory to the Court

#16

Jul 09, 2026

Order

#17

Jul 13, 2026

Order

#18

Aug 03, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Petitioner asserts that his detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as interpreted by Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Respondents have submitted a response in opposition supported by the declaration of Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer ("SDDO") Sergio Vasquez. Petitioner has filed several Advisories to the Court. After reviewing the briefing, provided evidence, and applicable law, the Court grants the petition based on the law as set out and analyzed in Shengelia v. Ortega, No. 5:25 CV 1545 JKP, 2025 WL 3654368 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2025), and Marquez Amaya v. Thompson, No. 5:25 CV 1501 JKP, 2025 WL 3654327 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2025). While there are differences between this case and those cited cases, none warrant a different result. For reasons previously stated in those cases, the Court finds that (1) there is no question that Petitioner has been detained longer than the presumptively reasonable six month period recognized in Zadvydas; (2) Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future; and (3) Respondents have not responded with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. Through the circumstances of Petitioners detention and the undisputed facts, Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Zadvydas. Petitioner, Maher Almatni, a native of Libya and citizen of Syria, entered the United States without inspection near Eagle Pass, Texas, on or about October 19, 2024, and was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol. He was convicted of improper entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, served a 90 day sentence, and on January 17, 2025, was transferred to ICE custody at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, Texas, where he remains detained under a February 10, 2025 final order of removal to Syria. After a negative credible fear finding was affirmed by an Immigration Judge, the February 10, 2025 removal order became administratively final and ICE requested a Syrian travel document on April 2, 2025. By June 16, 2025, HQ Removal Management Division had reviewed the request and forwarded it to the Department of State for Syrian mission review, and between July 18, 2025, and January 30, 2026, ERO and the Detention and Deportation Officer repeatedly sought status updates. Despite these efforts, as SDDO Vasquezs declaration confirms, more than a year after the final order ICE still has no Syrian travel document and no concrete plan or timeframe for Petitioners removal. On this record, Petitioner has provided "good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Respondents rely on SDDO Vasquez's declaration to carry their burden, but that declaration, which offers only generalized assurances of ongoing efforts, describes emails and internal status checks, and cites no response from Syrian authorities, no indication of a travel document in process, and no projected timeline, is insufficient where detention now exceeds one year with no concrete progress toward removal. The circumstances provide good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of Petitioners removal in the foreseeable future, and Respondents have not rebutted that showing. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that habeas relief is proper and Zadvydas requires Petitioners release from the unlawful detention. Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, are not available in habeas corpus proceedings like this one, and the Court treats the instant action solely as a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and declines to consider any claim other than the alleged Zadvydas violation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before August 5, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner, Maher Almatni, from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioners counsel, if any, of the exact location and exact time of release as soon as practicable and no less than two hours before release. Any possible or anticipated removal or transfer of Petitioner under this present detention is PROHIBITED, except that Respondents may effectuate his removal to Syria if they are able to do so in accordance with the timeframe of this Order. No later than the next business day after the ordered release date, Respondents shall FILE a status report to confirm whether Petitioner has been released. If Petitioner disagrees with any aspect of the filed status report, they may file a separate status report. A written final judgment will be issued separately to summarize the orders of the Court and to close this habeas case. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lc) (Entered: 08/03/2026)

#19

Aug 03, 2026

Judgment AND ~Util - Set/Clear Flags

Aug 03, 2026

Order

#20

Aug 06, 2026

Status Report