Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
AHMED SHEDID MOHAMED
GHOUNEIM,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00115-KG-DLM
MARISA FLORES, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Ahmed Shedid Mohamed Ghouneim’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 habeas petition. Doc. 1. Despite service and an order to answer, the Government failed
to respond to the petition. Because Petitioner’s challenge presents purely legal questions, the
Court declines to hold a hearing, 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and denies the petition without prejudice for
the reasons below.
I. Background
Petitioner, a 41-year-old native and citizen of Egypt, entered the United States near San
Ysidro, California “on January 27, 2024, seeking asylum from persecution.” Doc. 1 at 2. “After
being initially released from custody pending his removal proceedings, [Petitioner] was taken
into [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘ICE’)] custody on April 4, 2025.” Id. He is
currently “detained at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico.” Id. at 4.
An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) “ultimately denied asylum but granted withholding of removal on
September 15, 2025, recognizing that [Petitioner] faces a clear probability of persecution if
returned to Egypt.” Id. Both parties waived appeal, so Petitioner’s order of removal became
administratively final on September 15, 2025. Id. at 8, 10. “While his immigration case was
Case 2:26-cv-00115-KG-DLM Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
pending, [Petitioner] complied with all legal requirements and attended scheduled hearings” in
his immigration case. Id. at 7.
“As a consequence of the grant of withholding of removal, the United States government
cannot lawfully remove [Petitioner] to Egypt,” and Petitioner “has no citizenship, residency, or
ties in any country other than Egypt.” Id. at 8. “[N]o country has indicated willingness to accept
him, and removal is not practically attainable at this time or in the foreseeable future.” Id. at 9.
“It has been [under five] months since his removal order became final and [under 10 months]
since he was taken into ICE custody.” Id. Petitioner argues that his continued detention violates
the due process framework of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
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 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.
III. Analysis
After reviewing the record and applicable legal authority, the Court concludes that
Petitioner 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).
Case 2:26-cv-00115-KG-DLM Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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.).
Under these principles, the Court denies Petitioner’s habeas petition without prejudice.
As of the date of this order, Petitioner has been detained for under five months since his order of
removal became administratively final on September 15, 2025, which is under the presumptively
reasonable six-month period of detention that Zadvydas recognized. Attempting to get around
this issue, Petitioner cites decisions from this District ordering release, Doc. 1 at 3, but in both
decisions, the petitioner was detained beyond six months. See Pablo Lorenzo v. Bondi, 2026 WL
84521, at *4 (D.N.M.) (“Petitioner has been detained for over six months” after removal order);
Jimenez Chacon v. Lyons, 2025 WL 3496702, at *7 (D.N.M. Dec. 4, 2025) (petitioner detained
“at least 11 months” after removal order). These decisions therefore do not persuade the Court,
and the petition is denied without prejudice to its refiling after Zadvydas’ presumptively
reasonable six-month period expires.
Case 2:26-cv-00115-KG-DLM Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. Conclusion
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition (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-00115-KG-DLM Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4