Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02489

#1

Apr 15, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21771184), filed by ASHRAF HASSAN SALEH SALEH. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(Villalon, Lorena) (Entered: 04/15/2026)

Apr 15, 2026

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

Apr 15, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (vl)

Apr 16, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Apr 16, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Apr 17, 2026

Order

Apr 27, 2026

Order

#4

May 04, 2026

Response

#5

Jul 09, 2026

Order

#6

Jul 13, 2026

Order

#7

Sep 25, 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. 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); Marquez-Amaya v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-1501-JKP, 2025 WL 3654327, at *5 (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 Petitioner's detention and the undisputed facts, Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Zadvydas. Petitioner has been detained since June 13, 2025, with a final order of removal since February 10, 2026. He filed this action two months after his order of removal became final. He contends that, despite the order of removal, Respondents have failed to articulate any concrete plan for such removal in the foreseeable future. Respondents have not contested that contention. Petitioner further contends that Respondents have afforded him no individualized post-order custody determination or explanation why continued confinement is necessary. Respondents do not contest this contention. Instead, Respondents simply assert that they properly detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and that his detention is also lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). They argue that there is no good reason to believe that removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future and characterize the petition as premature as to an asserted claim under Zadvydas. They provide nothing to indicate any plan for removing Petitioner to Jordan or any other country. As six months has now passed since the order of removal became final in February 2026, there is no issue of prematurity at this point. When Respondents have articulated no concrete plan to remove a detainee and have also failed to afford any individualized post-order custody determination or explanation why continued confinement is necessary, such circumstances show the requisite good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. This Court has recognized that the "good reason" standard is not onerous. See Jamshidiparvar v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-1326-JKP, 2026 WL 301070, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2026). It is thus incumbent upon Respondents to rebut that showing and they have not done so. Despite Petitioner's lengthy detention, Respondents have provided nothing to show that they are making any effort to remove him to his native country, Jordan, or to any other country. Typically, Respondents rely on a submitted declaration to carry their burden, but they do not even proffer such declaration in this case.Under the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that habeas relief is proper and Zadvydas requires Petitioner's 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. 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 September 27, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Ashraf Hassan Saleh Saleh from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner's counsel 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 unless Respondents are able to remove Petitioner to his native country Jordan before releasing him 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 counsel for Petitioner disagrees with any aspect of the filed Status Report, counsel 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.) (rw) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

Sep 25, 2026

Order

#8

Sep 28, 2026

Judgment

#9

Sep 28, 2026

Status Report