Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NING YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFREY BUTLER, in his official
capacity as Warden, FCI Lewisburg,
Respondent.
No. 4:26-CV-02319
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
OCTOBER 13, 2026
I. 	BACKGROUND
Ning Yang, currently a detainee of the United States Department of Homeland
Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), has filed this 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition seeking his release from ICE custody.1 As relevant to the Court’s
opinion, Yang alleges that his continued confinement absent a significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future violates his constitutional rights. 2
Yang, a citizen and native of the People’s Republic of China, entered the
United States of America in 1993 and filed an application for asylum.3 That
application was denied and, by the mid-1990s, Yang was subject to a final order of
1 	Doc. 1.
2 	Id. at 17-22.
3 	Id. at 3.
Case 4:26-cv-02319-MWB Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 7

2
removal from the United States, but was not taken into ICE custody.4 In early 2016,
Yang was convicted of two counts of cruelty toward a child and one count of neglect
of a child and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. 5
Upon Yang’s release from imprisonment in November of 2017, he was taken
into ICE custody. 6 Although the parties disagree on the precise timing, Yang was
detained by ICE for some time until he was released from custody after ICE
determined that the order of removal could not be executed to due a lack of
cooperation from the Chinese government. 7
Yang remained on release until January 11, 2026, when he was again taken
into ICE custody, and he has remained in ICE custody since that date. 8 Yang is
currently detained at the Federal Correctional Institution, Lewisburg, located within
the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 9
In August of 2026 Yang filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing, inter
alia, that his continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution.10 He avers that his detention is presumptively unreasonable and,
4 	Id. at 4; Doc. 7 at 2.
5 	Doc. 7 at 2-3.
6 	Id. at 3.
7 	See id.; Doc. 1 at 4.
8 	Doc. 1 at 4-5; Doc. 7 at 3.
9 	Doc. 1 at 1.
10 	Doc. 1 at 17-22.
Case 4:26-cv-02319-MWB Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 7

3
because 	there 	is 	no 	significant 	likelihood 	of 	his 	removal 	in 	the 	reasonably
foreseeable future, he must be released from ICE custody.11
The Government responds that Yang is properly detained on a final order of
removal and his removal is likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, and
his petition should therefore be denied.12 Yang has filed a reply brief, rendering this
matter ripe for disposition.13 For the reasons discussed below, the petition will be
granted.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Yang brings his claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which provides, as
relevant here, that it applies to any individual who is “in custody for an act done or
omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree
of a court or judge of the United States.”14 As the Supreme Court of the United States
has 	emphasized, 	when 	ICE 	detainees 	challenge 	“their 	confinement” 	pending
removal, “their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus
must be brought in” a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.15 Yang’s claims are therefore
properly brought in this petition.16
11 	Id.
12 	Doc. 7 at 5-11.
13 	Doc. 8.
14 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(2).
15 	Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025).
16 	Yang raises several different claims in his petition. However, because this Court resolves the
petition based on his due process claim, it need not resolve the remaining claims.
Case 4:26-cv-02319-MWB Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Yang is being detained under the post-removal detention provision of the
Immigration and Nationality Act which states, in relevant part, that “when an alien
is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United
States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as the ‘removal
period’).”17 During the removal period “the Attorney General shall detain the
alien.” 18 The statute further provides that most individuals “may be detained beyond
the removal period.” 19
However, authorizing unlimited detention presents constitutional concerns
and, accordingly, in Zadvydas v. Davis, 20 the Supreme Court of the United States
held that the removal statute “contain[s] an implicit ‘reasonable time’ limitation, the
application of which is subject to federal-court review.” 21 The Supreme Court further
held that detention of up to six months is presumptively reasonable. 22
The expiration of that six-month period “does not mean that every alien not
removed must be released.”23 Rather, “[a]fter this 6–month period, once the alien
provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in
the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence
17 	8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A).
18 	Id. § (a)(2)(A).
19 	Id. § (a)(6).
20 	533 U.S. 678 (2001).
21 	Id. at 682.
22 	Id. at 701.
23 	Id.
Case 4:26-cv-02319-MWB Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 7

5
sufficient to rebut that showing.”24 Consequently, “an alien may be held in
confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” 25
It is undisputed that Yang is subject to a final order of removal, and that he
has been detained for longer than six months.26 Moreover, the facts of this case
compel the conclusion that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future and, accordingly, Yang’s petition must be granted.
While Respondent contends that Yang failed to meet his initial burden of proof that
removal is not significantly likely, the Court disagrees. 27 Rather, the record reflects
that the Government has been actively trying to remove Yang from the United States
for years; he was previously detained by ICE but released after ICE determined that
Yang could not be removed due to a lack of cooperation from the Chinese
Government.28
Moreover, by Respondent’s own account, since Yang’s most recent detention
in January of this year, the Government has attempted without success to obtain
travel documents to facilitate Yang’s return to China. On February 20, 2026, a travel
document request was submitted to the Chinese Government, and an updated request
24 	Id.
25 	Id.
26 	Doc. 7 at 5-6.
27 	Id.
28 	Doc. 1 at 4. See also Doc. 7-10.
Case 4:26-cv-02319-MWB Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 7

6
was submitted on March 6, 2026.29 On July 15, 2026, China informed the United
States Government that it could not verify Yang’s nationality. 30 As a result,
Respondent asserts that ICE “will submit digital travel document request for
additional checks” but does not state when this may occur. 31
Not only has Yang met his initial burden, but Respondent has failed to rebut
that showing, and the evidence in totality demonstrates that Yang’s removal is not
significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. 32 Consequently, Yang’s
continued detention violates his constitutional rights, and he must be released from
custody.33 When Yang is released ICE must further “restore the conditions of his
prior Order of Supervision.”34
29 	Doc. 7-10 at 3.
30 	Id. at 4.
31 	Id.
32 	The fact that the Government has been successful in removing other Chinese nationals, Doc.
7 at 7, does not rebut the evidence demonstrating that it is unlikely to remove Yang in the
foreseeable future, given its demonstrated lack of success in that endeavor to date, and the fact
that China recently refused the request to provide travel documents for Yang.
33 	See Nguyen v. Sage, No. 3:26-CV-1661, 2026 WL 2087362, at *4 n.4 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2026)
(noting that release from custody, and not a bond hearing, is the appropriate remedy and
collecting cases).
34 	Id. at *4.
Case 4:26-cv-02319-MWB Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 7

7
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Respondent has violated
Yang’s due process rights. Consequently, his petition will be granted, and the
Government will be required to release Yang from custody.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02319-MWB Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 7 of 7