Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
OLENA MANKO,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00749-KG-KRS
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Olena Manko’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 7. For the reasons below, the Court grants the
habeas petition and orders Petitioner’s immediate release.
I. Background
Petitioner, a citizen of Ukraine, entered the United States in 2015 on a B-1 visitor visa.
Docs. 1 at 9, 7 at 2. On June 13, 2025, Petitioner appeared for a scheduled interview to assess
her eligibility for political asylum. Doc. 1 at 9. Upon Petitioner’s arrival, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents detainer her. Id. At the outset of her detention, an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that Petitioner was not eligible for release on bond. Id. On
September 8, 2025, an IJ pretermitted Petitioner’s asylum application and ordered her removed
from the United States. Doc. 7 at 2–3. Petitioner did not appeal. Id.
Petitioner alleges that, in November 2025, ICE informed her that it “had a plane going to
Poland for Ukrainians,” but she was “never taken to the plane.” Doc. 1 at 9. In December 2025,
ICE agents told Petitioner that they were “going to send” her “to a country of [her] choice.” Id.
Petitioner requested removal to Romania. Id.
Petitioner seeks immediate release. She argues that she has been detained for more than
Case 2:26-cv-00749-KG-KRS Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
six months and that her removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Doc. 1 at 6. Respondents claim
that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is “gathering guidance to see if it may
remove Petitioner to Poland.” Doc. 3 at 7.
II. Standard of Review
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 under § 2241 if a noncitizen’s detention “violat[es] the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
III. Analysis
Ms. Salazar’s detention violates due process. “[T]he Government ordinarily secures [a
noncitizen]’s removal during” the 90 days after a removal order becomes administratively final.
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). A removal order becomes
administratively final upon the earlier of the noncitizen’s waiver of the right to appeal, or the
expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a)–(b). During the
90-day “removal period,” the noncitizen is typically detained. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682. After
that, the Government may detain the noncitizen for as long as is “reasonably necessary” to secure
their removal. Id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
Because a statute permitting indefinite detention of a noncitizen would raise Fifth
Amendment due process concerns, “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 is presumptively reasonable. Id. 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
Case 2:26-cv-00749-KG-KRS Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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 Zadvydas claim is
generally 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.).
Under these principles, the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework applies. Petitioner did
not appeal the IJ’s removal order. It therefore became administratively final on October 8, 2025,
upon expiration of the 30-day appeal period. Petitioner has been detained for just over six
months since that date.
Next, Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. She asserts that removal to Ukraine is not
possible due to the ongoing war. Id. She further alleges that ICE has repeatedly postponed her
removal and has indicated that a plane may be available in April or May. Id. These allegations
are sufficient to meet her initial burden.
The Government fails to rebut Petitioner’s showing. It does not dispute her allegations
and states that DHS is “gathering guidance” regarding Petitioner’s possible removal to Poland.
Doc. 7 at 3. That is not enough. The Government offers no timeline, no confirmed destination,
and no evidence that removal is imminent. It therefore fails to show that removal is reasonably
foreseeable. See Momennia v. Bondi, 2025 WL 3011896, at *10 (W.D. Okla.) (“[M]ere intent to
find a third country,” absent “specific communications between the United States and an
identified country” is “too speculative to permit indefinite detention”), R&R adopted, 2025 WL
3006045 (W.D. Okla.); Vargas v. Noem, 2025 WL 2770679, at *3 (D. Kan.) (same).
Case 2:26-cv-00749-KG-KRS Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. Conclusion
Because Petitioner has shown good reason to believe that her removal is not significantly
likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and because Respondents have not rebutted that
showing, her continued detention violates § 1231(a). The Court orders the Government to
release Petitioner within seven (7) business days of this Order. The Government shall file a
status report within ten (10) business days demonstrating compliance.
/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-00749-KG-KRS Document 9 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 4