Ali v. Frink

1 / 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ABDAL JABER ALI,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-02269
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Abdal Jaber Ali’s Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 15) and Respondents’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 17). After considering the briefing and applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 	Respondents’ Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED. Petitioner’s Request for Declarative Judgment (ECF No. 18) is DENIED
AS MOOT.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner Abdal Jaber Ali is a Palestinian native of the West Bank. ECF No. 7, Ex. 1. Mr.
Ali entered the United States on November 1, 2014, on a nonimmigrant visa which expired on
April 30, 2015. ECF No. 1, Ex. 4 (Notice to Appear). Mr. Ali overstayed his visa. Id. On February
8, 2018, Mr. Ali filed an affirmative application for asylum (Form I-589) with U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services. ECF No. 7, Ex. 3 (Sheehan Decl.) at ¶ 7. This application was denied
on April 5, 2018, and Mr. Ali was placed in removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02269 Document 19 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7

2 / 7
(IJ). Id. at ¶ 8. These proceedings were dismissed without prejudice on September 21, 2023, on
the parties’ joint motion. Id. at ¶ 9.
On July 9, 2025, Mr. Ali was arrested by the Houston Police Department and charged with
assault on a family member. Id. at ¶ 10. The Harris County District Court ultimately dismissed
these charges on September 21, 2025. Id. at ¶ 12. Mr. Ali was remanded to the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the same day and issued a Notice to Appear in
removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge. Id. On October 23, 2025, an Immigration Judge
ordered Mr. Ali released from custody on a $15,000 bond. ECF No. 7, Ex. 6 (IJ Bond Order).
However, Mr. Ali was unable to afford this bond at the time, and he therefore remained in custody.1
On February 6, 2026, the Immigration Judge issued a written decision ordering that Mr.
Ali be removed to Palestine. ECF No. 7, Ex. 2. Petitioner did not appeal this decision to the Board
of Immigration Appeals within the requisite 30 days, meaning that the removal order became
administratively final on March 10, 2026. Sheehan Decl. at ¶ 13.
Mr. Ali filed his initial habeas petition with this Court on March 20, 2026. The Court held
a hearing on the Petition on April 28, 2026, at which the Court denied Mr. Ali’s habeas petition
without prejudice as premature, and ordered the Government to update the Court as to the status
of Petitioner’s removal on June 10, 2026. See Minute Entry of April 28, 2026.
On June 10, 2026, Respondents filed a status update informing the Court that Mr. Ali
remained in ICE custody and had not been removed from the United States. See ECF No. 14. On
June 15, Petitioner filed the instant Amended Petitioner for Habeas Corpus. Mr. Ali has now been
1 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, does not provide significant information in his Petition.
However, the Court held hearings in this case in which Petitioner participated on April 27 and
April 28, 2026, and clarified details such as this one with Mr. Ali.
Case 4:26-cv-02269 Document 19 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

3 / 7
in ICE detention for nearly ten months. He has been in post-removal order detention for just over
four months.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Mr. Ali challenges “the indefinite nature of his detention” and argues that ICE is unable to
remove him to the West Bank because of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. ECF
No. 15 at 6. Mr. Ali asks the Court to order either “[his] immediate release. . . or [that ICE] deport
[him] immediately.” Id. at 7. Liberally construing Mr. Ali’s pro se Petition, the Court understands
Mr. Ali to argue that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and 8
U.S.C. § 1231, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Because the Court finds that there is “no
significant likelihood of [Petitioner’s] removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the Court
will grant his petition for habeas corpus relief. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
In most circumstances, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) allows the United
States Government ninety days to remove a noncitizen following a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1). The Government may detain noncitizens during this ninety-day removal period. Id.
The ninety-day period may be “extended . . . if the alien fails or refuses to make timely application
in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien’s departure or conspires or acts
to prevent the alien’s removal subject to an order of removal.” Id. In this case, there is no allegation
that Mr. Ali has failed to cooperate with the Government in facilitating his removal.
In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that § 1231 authorized detention beyond the
statutory removal period for only as long as removal was “reasonably foreseeable.” Zadvydas, 533
U.S. at 699. The Zadvydas Court held that post-removal-order detention that extended beyond six
months would be considered presumptively unconstitutional. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. After six
months of detention, a noncitizen who presents good reason to believe that there is “no significant
Case 4:26-cv-02269 Document 19 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

4 / 7
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future” must be released from custody unless
the Government provides evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. Id. This is because “where
detention’s goal is no longer practically attainable, detention no longer bears a reasonable relation
to the purpose for which the individual was committed.” Id. at 690 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Since the primary goal of detention under § 1231 is to ensure the appearance of
noncitizens at future immigration proceedings, this justification “is weak or nonexistent where
removal seems a remote possibility at best.”2 Id.
Mr. Ali has been detained pursuant to § 1231(a) since his removal order became
administratively final on March 10, 2026—just over four months. His detention is therefore
“presumptively reasonable” under Zadvydas. But “[t]his six-month presumption is not a bright
line, . . . and Zadvydas did not automatically authorize all detention until it reaches constitutional
limits.” Ali v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 451 F. Supp. 3d 703, 707 (S.D. Tex. 2020) (Ellison, J.); see
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 384 (2005) (“Zadvydas did not hold that [§ 1231] authorizes
detention until it approaches constitutional limits; it held that. . . [§ 1231] authorize[s] detention
only for a period consistent with the purpose of effectuating removal.”). Just as the Government
may overcome the presumption that detention beyond six months is unreasonable by showing that
removal is reasonably foreseeable, so too may a noncitizen overcome the presumption that a
shorter period of detention is reasonable by showing that detention is no longer consistent with the
statutory purpose because removal is not foreseeable. See, e.g., Villanueva v. Tate, 801 F. Supp.
3d 689, 702 (S.D. Tex. 2025) (noting that “nothing in Zadvydas precludes a challenge to detention
before the presumptively constitutional time period has elapsed”); Zavvar v. Scott, No. CV 25-
2 While preventing danger to the community is also a goal of § 1231, the Zadvydas Court noted
that “preventive detention based on dangerousness only when limited to specially dangerous
individuals and subject to strong procedural protections.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 691.
Case 4:26-cv-02269 Document 19 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7

5 / 7
2104-TDC, 2025 WL 2592543, at *5 (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2025) (stating that six month presumption
of reasonability “is rebuttable”); Ali, 451 F. Supp. 3d at 707 (holding that a three-month period of
post-removal order detention was unreasonable because removal was no longer possible in the
foreseeable future where petitioner’s country of origin had closed its borders to international flights
due to the COVID-19 pandemic).
The question now becomes whether Mr. Ali has shown that his removal is sufficiently
unlikely that his detention is not reasonably related to effectuating removal. Given the ongoing
conflicts in the Middle East and the general difficulty of effectuating removal of Palestinian
nationals to Israeli occupied territory since October 7, 2023, the Court concludes that Mr. Ali has
successfully rebutted the presumption that his continued detention is reasonable. See Abuelhawa
v. Noem, 811 F. Supp. 3d 847, 860 (S.D. Tex. 2025) (“Suggestion of return in the reasonably
foreseeable future of a Palestinian national to any of Jordan, Israel, or a Palestinian territory is
objectively specious.”).
The burden therefore shifts to the Government to demonstrate that Mr. Ali’s removal is
reasonably foreseeable. In support of this position, the Government points to the fact that Mr. Ali
has a valid travel document (his Palestinian passport), that ICE “accomplished. . . 28 removals of
Palestinian/Israeli nationals in fiscal year 2024,” and that they anticipate normal flight scheduling
to resume in the Middle East pursuant to the June 17, 2026 Memorandum of Understanding
between the United States and Iran. See generally ECF No. 17, Ex. 1 (Zhang Decl.). The Court is
unpersuaded. Although Mr. Ali possesses a travel document, this document is no guarantee that
Israeli authorities will allow his removal. As the Government acknowledges, ICE must obtain a
transit visa from Israeli authorities in order to remove a Palestinian national to the West Bank.
Zhang Decl. at ¶ 14. ICE has not yet requested a transit visa for Mr. Ali, let alone provided any
Case 4:26-cv-02269 Document 19 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7

6 / 7
information suggesting that one is likely to be granted. Id. Additionally, while the Government
cites statistics showing that it successfully removed 28 “Palestinian/Israeli” nationals in 2024,
these statistics do not differentiate between removals of Israeli nationals to Israel, which do not
require a transit visa, and removals of Palestinian nationals to the West Bank, which are more
complicated for obvious reasons. The Government has provided no data or other information
regarding removals of Palestinian nationals to Israeli-occupied territory specifically. Finally,
international developments since the Government filed its renewed response on June 24
demonstrate the ongoing challenges of accomplishing removals to the Middle East at this time. As
of this writing, the United States has resumed strikes on Iran, raising serious doubts about the
viability of deportation flights to Israel/Palestine in the foreseeable future.3 In short, nothing that
the Government has presented persuades the Court that Mr. Ali’s removal to Israel/Palestine is
reasonably foreseeable.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that there is no likelihood that Mr. Ali will
be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. His continued detention is therefore unreasonable
under the INA and Zadvydas.
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows.
1. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody within 48 hours.
2. 	Respondents must release Petitioner in a public place within the Southern District of Texas,
and must notify him of the time and place of his release no less than three hours prior.
3 See Filip Timotija, Trump formally informs Congress of Iran war resumption, The Hill (Jul. 13, 2026, at 16:30
ET), https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5966415-trump-congress-resumes-strikes-iran/.
Case 4:26-cv-02269 Document 19 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

7 / 7
Petitioner must be given the opportunity to inform a friend or family member of the timing
and location of his release.
3. 	Respondents must return all personal property to Petitioner upon release, including all
identity documents such as a social security card, Employment Authorization Document,
driver’s license, and/or passport.
4. 	Respondents shall update the Court on the status of Petitioner’s release on or before
July 20, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on July 15, 2026.
_______________________________
Keith P. Ellison
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02269 Document 19 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7