Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ABDULLAH AHMAD JUMADAR,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00159-KG-JMR
DORA CASTRO, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Abdullah Ahmad Jumadar’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. 8. Because Petitioner’s challenge presents purely legal questions, the Court
declines to hold a hearing, 28 U.S.C. § 2243, grants the motion, Doc. 8, and denies the petition
without prejudice, Doc. 1.
I. Background
Mr. Ahmad Jumadar, a citizen of Afghanistan, was arrested in the Rio Grande Valley,
Texas Border Patrol Sector in March 2025 pending expedited removal. Doc. 8 at 1. On March
24, 2025, he was referred for a credible fear assessment and subsequent asylum claim. Id. at 2.
On October 9, 2025, “the U.S. Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s asylum claim and ordered
him removed to Afghanistan.” Id. Mr. Jumadar waived his right to appeal, making his removal
order administratively final on the same day. Id. He is currently detained at the Otero County
Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. Doc. 1 at 1.
Mr. Jumadar filed this pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 26.
Doc. 1. He challenges his final deportation order and requests the Court “order to release me
Case 2:26-cv-00159-KG-JMR Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
with social security number [and] work permit to help me survive in US [and] start my life.”
Doc. 1 at 7. Mr. Jumadar argues that his continued detention is outside of “the six month
presumptively reasonable period for removal.” Id. at 6. The Government argues that Mr.
Jumadar’s “continued detention to effectuate removal is lawful” and that his detention “fails to
state a plausible Zadvydas claim” and that Mr. Jumadar “has provided no authority that...would
entitle him to release via habeas.” Doc. 8 at 5–6.
II. Legal Standard
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, 533 U.S. at 687. “[H]abeas relief is
available only in the district of confinement.” Gamez Lira v. Noem, 2025 WL 2581710, at *2
(D.N.M.).
When “an applicant for admission” is “seeking admission” and “not clearly and beyond a
doubt entitled to be admitted,” the noncitizen “shall be detained” for removal proceedings. 8
U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(2)(A). This provision affords no bond hearing. See Salazar v. Dedos, 2025
WL 2676729, at *3 (D.N.M.).
A noncitizen’s detention status transitions to the administrative “removal period” of
§ 1231 on the latest of three events:
(i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively final.
(ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders
a stay of the removal of the [noncitizen], the date of the court’s final
order.
Case 2:26-cv-00159-KG-JMR Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
(iii) If the [noncitizen] is detained or confined (except under an
immigration process), the date the [noncitizen] is released from
detention or confinement.
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A).
III. Analysis
After reviewing the record and applicable legal authority, the Court concludes that Mr.
Jumadar fails to meet the standards set out in Zadvydas and that his petition is therefore denied
without prejudice.
“[T]he Government ordinarily secures” a noncitizen’s removal during the 90 days after
issuing a final order for the person to be removed. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682; see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1). During that 90-day removal period, the noncitizen is typically detained. Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 682. After that, the Government may continue detaining the noncitizen only for as
long as is “reasonably necessary” to secure their removal. Id.; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
Because a statute permitting a noncitizen’s “indefinite detention” would violate due
process, “once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer
authorized.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690, 699. A six-month detention period, the Supreme Court
held, is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 701. After that, if the noncitizen “provides good reason
to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,”
the Government “must…rebut that showing” or release the noncitizen. Id. at 701. “[F]or
detention to remain reasonable, as the period of prior postremoval confinement grows, what
counts as the reasonably foreseeable future…shrink[s].” Id. The remedy for a due process
violation under Zadvydas is typically release of the petitioner under conditions of supervision.
E.g., Gomez v. Mattos, 2025 WL 3101994, at *7 (D. Nev.); Trejo v. Warden of ERO, 2025 WL
2992187, at *10 (W.D. Tex.); Douglas v. Baker, 2025 WL 2997585, at *5 (D. Md.).
Case 2:26-cv-00159-KG-JMR Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Under these principles, the Court denies Mr. Jumadar’s habeas petition without prejudice.
As of the date of this order, Petitioner has been detained for under approximately four months
since his order of removal became administratively final on October 9, 2025, which is under the
presumptively reasonable six-month period of detention that Zadvydas recognized. Attempting
to get around this issue, Mr. Jumadar applies the Zadvydas timer to his original arrest. See Doc.
1 at 6 (“I am in detention [for] almost 1 year...[t]he six month presumptively reasonable period
for removal efforts has expired.”). Mr. Jumadar’s removal order became administratively final
in October and his § 1231 detention, and the Zadvydas timer, began on that date. Mr. Jumadar’s
argument therefore does not persuade the Court, and the petition is denied without prejudice to
its refiling after the Zadvydas’ presumptively reasonable six-month period expires.
IV. Conclusion
The Government’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 8, is
granted, and Mr. Jumadar’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is denied without
prejudice.
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-00159-KG-JMR Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4