Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Mayan v. Noem: when Pakistan travel documents and an unidentified alternative country do not support continued detention

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 10, 2026 · Updated October 17, 2026

Sohail Mayan’s habeas decision turns on a concrete evidentiary failure. The government conceded it could not obtain travel documents from Pakistan, identified no alternative removal country, and supplied only a vague, unsworn account of efforts toward another destination. After detention extending beyond six months, that response did not rebut the evidence that removal was not reasonably foreseeable. The court ordered release under the conditions that preceded re-detention. Opinion and order, pp. 3–5.

The prior unsuccessful removal effort mattered

The opinion describes Mayan as a native of Pakistan who was stateless. He entered the United States as a refugee in 1988. Following later criminal convictions, an immigration judge ordered him removed on December 4, 2019. ICE released him under supervision on May 25, 2020, then detained him again on September 11, 2025. By March 24, 2026, the government had reported that it did not intend to remove him within the next thirty days. Opinion and order, p. 1.

The court considered both the current period of detention and the earlier failed removal effort. The old removal order established neither that Pakistan would issue usable documents nor that a different destination had become a realistic option. The question was what the government could show about removal now. Opinion and order, pp. 2–4.

The petition challenged custody

The government argued that §§ 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9) barred jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument by reference to its earlier decisions concerning review of post-removal-order detention. It then examined the statutory authority for continued custody. This distinction matters: A petition seeking release from unlawful detention is not automatically a vehicle to invalidate the removal order or choose a destination. Jurisdiction must be analyzed for the actual relief requested. Opinion and order, p. 2.

Six months and evidence worked together

The court applied Zadvydas’s framework: Once the presumptively reasonable period has passed, the petitioner must provide good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government then must rebut that showing with sufficient evidence. Mayan had been detained for more than six months. The government’s inability to obtain Pakistani documents, the unsuccessful earlier detention, and the absence of another identified country supplied the necessary factual showing. Opinion and order, p. 3.

For the current detention episode, September 11, 2025 to March 11, 2026 marks six calendar months. The April 9 decision came after that point. But the opinion also noted that the original statutory removal period had ended years earlier. These are separate facts: A long-final order does not mean the person spent all intervening years physically detained, and a later arrest should not be analyzed without examining the earlier supervision and custody history. Opinion and order, pp. 1–3.

Why the government’s response failed

The government offered a general statement that DHS was attempting third-country removal. The court found that insufficient because it identified no country, explained no likely timetable, and did not show why efforts would succeed when the earlier effort had failed. Opinion and order, pp. 3–4.

The decision illustrates why a general aspiration to remove someone may fail to rebut specific evidence of prolonged, unresolved barriers. A supported response could present a materially different record. Each case requires scrutiny of the evidence actually submitted.

Travel documents connect legal authority with practical removal

A travel document is a document usable for the proposed international journey, such as a passport or emergency document. Obtaining one may require identity or nationality verification. A final U.S. removal order does not itself supply all the necessary travel documentation. In Mayan, the government’s concession that it could not obtain Pakistani documents was therefore significant to the foreseeability analysis. Opinion and order, p. 3.

The correct pleading is not simply that there is no passport. Identify the proposed destination, the needed document, the requests made, the response received, and the unresolved obstacle. Then explain why those facts undermine removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, including any proposed alternative country. Do not make unsupported statements about nationality or diplomatic refusals.

Keep the evidence organized around the disputed proposition

Someone preparing a comparable claim should assemble the final removal order, a complete custody chronology, prior release orders, travel-document correspondence, and the government’s most recent explanation of its removal plans. A dated declaration should explain the person’s own knowledge and efforts to cooperate. Each factual proposition should point to an exhibit or identifiable source.

For a previously released person, also inspect the revocation notice and interview record. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 may supply a separate ground when its scope and the release history support its application. Zimran’s California decision develops that regulatory analysis; Mayan’s opinion resolves its case through the Zadvydas evidentiary framework. The holdings should not be collapsed into a single universal rule.

The relief was specific

The court partially granted the petition and ordered release on the previous supervision conditions, with a compliance filing due April 13. It declined to order return of identity documents because the request was not shown to be materially connected with present or future custody and the record did not suggest officials would refuse to return them. Its instruction concerning the deadline for a possible fee petition was not an award of attorney’s fees. Opinion and order, pp. 4–5.

Mayan is a district court decision from Indiana, not controlling precedent for every California detention case. Its practical value is the connection between a well-supported showing and the government’s evidentiary response. The petitioner established concrete obstacles; a vague reference to an unidentified destination did not answer them. The resulting relief addressed detention and restored supervision, without cancelling the removal order.

Key takeaways

• Identify the applicable detention authority and explain the timeline.
• Support removal obstacles and cooperation with specific evidence.
• Analyze supervised-release revocation separately where applicable.
• Match the requested relief to the established custody violation.