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

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. Id. at 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. Id. at 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. Id. at 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. Id. at 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. Id. at 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. Id. at 3–4.

The decision does not say that international negotiations must always have finished before detention can continue. It 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. Id. at 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. The opinion's description of Mayan as stateless does not establish that every Pakistan-born detainee is similarly situated.

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. Section 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. Id. at 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.

Preparing the allegations: questions raised by a case like Mayan

Answer the questions that apply in numbered factual allegations, supported by dated exhibits and a declaration based on personal knowledge. Explain an unknown fact and the efforts to obtain it rather than inventing an answer.

1. Who holds you, where, and under what authority? Identify the current facility, custodian, asserted detention statute, and relevant custody notices.
2. When did the removal order become final? Identify the immigration judge and BIA decisions, any appeal, judicial stay, and release from criminal custody. Explain the applicable removal-period starting event.
3. What is the complete custody timeline? Give each detention, release, and re-detention date; calculate the current period; identify asserted extensions and why they apply or are disputed.
4. Why is removal not reasonably foreseeable? Identify specific obstacles, how long each has persisted, and the evidence supporting your account. Do not rely only on having passed six months.
5. What is the travel-document history? Identify the destination, requests, consular responses, issuance and expiry dates, outstanding requirements, and any supported renewal estimate.
6. What has ICE actually said about removal? Give the date and source of the latest statement, any proposed country, and the evidence of an achievable timetable. Explain what the statement does not resolve.
7. How have you cooperated? Describe applications, interviews, identity information, correspondence, and efforts to obtain documents. Explain each unavailable document and each alleged failure to comply.
8. Were you previously released under supervision? Attach the order, identify its basis and conditions, and explain your compliance. State the reason ICE gave for revocation.
9. What actually changed before re-detention? Identify the claimed new fact and explain, with evidence, why it does or does not materially change the removal prospect.
10. What notice and opportunity to respond did you receive? State when notice and an interview occurred, what reasons were explained, what you said, and what material you could not submit or the agency failed to consider.
11. What review have you already sought? Identify custody-review requests, decisions, prior habeas proceedings, and any applicable exhaustion issue; explain the factual basis for any asserted exception.
12. What precise relief addresses the custody violation? Explain the requested release conditions or other supported remedy, and distinguish that request from cancelling a removal order or challenging a speculative destination.

A separately pleaded constitutional claim should identify the protected interest, the process actually missing, and the resulting injury or prejudice under the governing law. Not every administrative omission independently requires release. Explain the legal connection between each alleged violation and the requested remedy.

First identify the government's detention authority

A Zadvydas claim generally challenges prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), after a final removal order. It is not a general six-month rule governing every kind of immigration detention. Obtain the removal order, any Board of Immigration Appeals decision, custody notices, judicial stay orders, and records of release or re-detention. An immigration judge's decision date is not necessarily the date the order became administratively final.

Different statutes govern different circumstances, including detention under §§ 1225 and 1226. Reinstated removal orders and withholding-only proceedings require particular care: the Supreme Court held that § 1231 governs the category addressed in Johnson v. Guzman Chavez. A pending protection application therefore does not, by itself, establish that § 1226 controls. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021).

Calculate the period without adding an extra ninety days

Section 1231(a)(1)(B) starts the statutory removal period on the latest applicable event: administrative finality of the removal order; the reviewing court's final order when judicial review is accompanied by a court-ordered stay of removal; or release from non-immigration detention or confinement. Document each event rather than assuming that the first ICE arrest supplies the answer. The statute's initial removal period is ninety days. The ordinary Zadvydas six-month framework includes that initial period; it is not ninety days plus another six months. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(b)(2)(ii).

For a simple example, suppose the removal order becomes final on March 15, the person is already continuously in immigration custody, and no later statutory trigger, stay complication, or noncooperation extension applies. September 15 is the six-calendar-month reference point. Do not move it to December by adding another ninety days. State the actual dates and elapsed custody days in the petition as well; do not assume six months always equals exactly 180 days. This example identifies a reference point, not a guaranteed filing or release date.

Prepare a table recording: finality; each criminal-custody release; each judicial stay and disposition; every ICE detention and release; and any asserted obstruction period. Time living in the community on supervision is not time physically detained. Transfers between ICE facilities ordinarily do not create a new detention episode. Earlier detention, supervised release, and re-detention should be listed separately, with an explanation of the asserted legal consequence of each period.

Do not assume every re-arrest grants ICE a new, unconditional six months. In Zimran, the court analyzed re-detention under the applicable supervised-release revocation regulations. Section 241.13(i)(1) separately addresses an additional six months following a violation of release conditions; § 241.13(i)(2) addresses changed circumstances making removal significantly likely. Whether either provision applies depends on the release history and the actual ground for revocation. Zimran, final R&R, pp. 24–26, 34–35.

Six months supplies a framework, not the whole claim

After the presumptively reasonable period, the detainee must provide good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government must then supply evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. Duration alone is insufficient; permanent impossibility of removal need not be proved. The longer post-removal confinement continues, the more closely the court scrutinizes the remaining foreseeable period. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699–701 (2001).

Facts supporting the initial showing may include repeated failed attempts to obtain necessary documents, a consular refusal or unresolved nationality investigation, expired documents without a supported renewal timeline, previous unsuccessful detention for the same removal objective, and the absence of a concrete alternative destination. A current document, confirmed arrangements, or persuasive evidence explaining a likely issuance date may support the government's response. The inquiry is individualized.

Nor does six months automatically create a statutory right to a bond hearing at which the government bears a clear-and-convincing burden. Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez rejected that construction of § 1231(a)(6). A separately pleaded constitutional theory needs its own analysis. 596 U.S. 573 (2022).

What a travel document is—and what it is not

In a removal case, a travel document can be a passport, an emergency passport, or another document issued or recognized for the person's travel to the proposed destination. An embassy or consulate may need to investigate identity and nationality before issuing one. The document's scope, validity period, and conditions matter. In Zimran, the government's materials included an emergency passport that had already expired before re-detention. Final R&R, pp. 26–31.

A removal order gives the United States legal authority to pursue removal; it does not itself supply every document or practical arrangement necessary to transport a person abroad. A request for travel documents is not an issued document. An itinerary is not proof that an expired document has been renewed. An old successful issuance may be relevant, but its significance depends on evidence that documents can be obtained and used now.

Avoid the overstatement that ICE must possess a particular foreign document before it may detain anyone. Document acquisition can be part of lawful removal preparations. Also distinguish practical documentation from a universal legal requirement of advance foreign consent: Jama held that the particular removal-country provision before it did not require such consent. The accurate question is whether the proposed removal can lawfully and realistically occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, considering the documents and arrangements actually needed. Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005).

Useful questions include: Which country and issuing authority? What was requested, and when? What response was received? Has a document actually issued? When does it expire? Is its use restricted? What remains unresolved? What supports the claimed timetable? Request the underlying records when available, not merely a characterization that removal is being pursued.

What § 241.13 does

Section 241.13 supplies special administrative review procedures for eligible people with final removal orders who present good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Its scope and exclusions must be read alongside the statute and controlling cases; not every order of supervision was issued under this section. Section 241.4 also permits some releases based on danger and flight-risk assessments without deciding foreseeability. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(a)–(b).

An eligible person may submit a written request explaining the obstacles to removal and documenting cooperation. The regulation addresses acknowledgment of the request, evidence review, an opportunity to respond to evidence relied on by the agency, a written decision, and release conditions. It also provides for special-circumstances proceedings under § 241.14. The administrative process and federal habeas procedure are distinct: document requests and decisions, and address whatever exhaustion rules and exceptions apply in the filing court. Do not assume either that an administrative request guarantees release or that it universally must be completed before any habeas claim can be heard.

For re-detention, examine three different provisions:

• § 241.13(i)(1): alleged violation of release conditions. Identify the condition, alleged conduct, supporting evidence, and the person's response. Do not confuse inability to obtain a document with deliberate refusal to cooperate.
• § 241.13(i)(2): changed removal circumstances. Identify what has actually changed since release and why that change makes removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. In Zimran, the court placed the burden on ICE under this provision.
• § 241.13(i)(3): revocation procedure. The regulation requires notice of the reasons upon revocation, a prompt initial informal interview allowing a response, the opportunity to submit information, and evaluation of relevant disputed facts. A signed form is not necessarily proof of a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Section 241.13(j)'s six-month interval for subsequent administrative review requests is a different clock from the Zadvydas detention benchmark. Keep those dates separate. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13.

Turn possible violations into factual allegations

These are potential theories, not findings that every omission independently requires release. Identify the applicable regulation, explain the resulting restraint or prejudice, and request relief supported by controlling law. Do not label a document forged, an officer dishonest, or conduct unlawful merely because the parties dispute it. Zimran did not need to resolve the disputed authenticity of the older documents to find the government's evidence insufficient.

Cooperation belongs in the petition, not in a footnote

Section 1231(a)(1)(C) permits extension when a person fails or refuses to make timely, good-faith applications for necessary travel documents or acts to prevent removal. Explain what was requested and what the person actually did. Preserve copies, dates, receipts, and responses. If documents do not exist or cannot be accessed, explain why and describe efforts to obtain them. Do not withhold information or obstruct removal to manufacture a claim. Zimran distinguished evidence of inability from the deliberate obstruction addressed in other cases. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C); final R&R, pp. 31–35.

An adaptable allegation structure

The following is a framework to complete with supported facts, not a ready-to-file claim:

Petitioner is currently detained at [facility] under [identified authority]. The removal order became administratively final on [date]. The applicable removal-period start is [date] because [statutory event and explanation]. The custody history is [dated periods, including release, stays, and any disputed extension]. Removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because [specific documented obstacles]. Petitioner has cooperated by [dated acts and exhibits]. The government's asserted basis for imminent removal is [accurate description]; it does not resolve [specific evidentiary gap]. Continued detention therefore exceeds the authority recognized in Zadvydas and § 1231(a)(6).

If the facts support a separate supervised-release claim, add distinct allegations explaining the prior release, applicable revocation provision, notice actually received, interview actually afforded, asserted changed circumstances or violation, contrary evidence, and resulting unlawful restraint. Do not automatically import Zimran's facts or its allocation of the burden into a case with a different release basis.

A petition must also address jurisdiction, the appropriate respondent and district, custody, verification, relevant prior proceedings, any applicable exhaustion issue, and the requested relief. Federal law requires a signed and verified application identifying the facts of detention and the custodian if known. Check the filing court's forms and rules. 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

Firsthand declarations and authenticated exhibits matter. Describe telephone conversations by date, participant, and substance; explain the source of knowledge and distinguish a direct observation from what someone else said. Counsel's argument is not a substitute for competent factual support. Zimran's initial emergency-relief denial and later successful record illustrate that distinction.

Ask for custody relief that matches the claim

Release may remain subject to supervision. Habeas relief from detention does not itself grant immigration status, cancel a removal order, or prohibit every future lawful re-detention. A challenge to the removal order or a concrete third-country removal threat raises separate jurisdictional and substantive questions. Zimran's speculative third-country grounds were dismissed as unripe; Mayan's request for an order returning identity documents was declined because the necessary connection to custody was not shown. Keep the requested remedy tied to the established violation.

This article analyzes public court records and does not claim that the firm represented the petitioner. General legal education; the proper claims and remedies depend on the individual record and controlling law.

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.