Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ALMANTAS KARKAUSKAS,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-02550-KG-JMR
LNU, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Almantas Karkauskas’s pro se Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, the Government’s Response, Doc. 6, and Petitioner’s Reply, Doc. 9.1
For the reasons below, the Court grants the habeas petition and orders his immediate release.
I. Background
The Government does not contest the facts presented in the Petition. See Doc. 6 at 1
(“For purposes of this specific case, Respondents are not submitting a factual Declaration or
legal brief in opposition to the Petition.”). Thus, the Court accepts the facts pled in the Petition
as true. See Doc. 1.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Lithuania, entered the United States through JFK
International Airport in New York on September 19, 2015. Id. at 8. Petitioner was detained by
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on September 27, 2017, pleaded guilty to a
charge of “credit card fraud less than [$]500,” and was issued an order of removal that became
administratively final on or about March 13, 2018. Doc. 1 at 8; Doc. 1-1 at 1–38. Petitioner was
1 The Government also filed a document listed in the docket as a Response to Order to Show
Cause that is substantively identical to the Government’s Response. Compare Doc. 6, with Doc.
7. The Court disregards this document as an errant filing.
Case 2:26-cv-02550-KG-JMR Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
released on an Order of Supervision and was re-detained by ICE on April 12, 2026. Doc. 1 at
10. Since then, Petitioner has remained in ICE custody and is currently detained at the Otero
County Detention Center in New Mexico. Id. at 10.
Petitioner seeks immediate release. He argues that his detention violates the Immigration
and Nationality Act (“INA”) and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because his
removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Id. at 6–7.
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 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).
“[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.; § 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,”
Case 2:26-cv-02550-KG-JMR Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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 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.). DHS regulations allow the government to
extend the removal period “if the [noncitizen] fails or refuses to make timely application in good
faith for travel or other documents necessary to the [noncitizen’s] departure or conspires or acts
to prevent the [noncitizen’s] removal subject to an order of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(g)(1)(ii).
III. Analysis
Petitioner’s detention violates due process. To start, the Zadvydas burden-shifting
framework applies. Petitioner’s removal order became administratively final on or about March
13, 2018, and was subsequently re-detained by ICE on April 12, 2026. Doc. 1 at 8–10. He has
now been detained for more than 6 months since that date, which exceeds the six-month
presumptively-reasonable period.
Next, Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. He specifically asserts that his deportation to
another country is “not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future[e]” and, as a
result, his “dewtention no longer serves [a reasonable] purpose[.]” Id. at 6. That allegation is
sufficient to meet his burden.
Finally, the Government does not contest the facts presented in the Petition or otherwise
rebut Petitioner’s claims that removal is not reasonably foreseeable. See Doc. 6. Instead, the
Government states that, “if the Court does grant the Petition, the appropriate relief would be an
Case 2:26-cv-02550-KG-JMR Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
order directing Petitioner’s release on conditions to be set by the Department of Homeland
Security.” Id. at 1; 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).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, Petitioner’s continued detention violates § 1231(a). The Court
therefore orders that:
1. The Government shall release Petitioner within 48 hours of this Order. The Government
shall not impose any new conditions of release.
2. Upon Petitioner’s release, the Government must return all of his property, including any
identification documentation that was in his possession when he was detained. The
Government shall also provide a copy of this Order to Petitioner.
3. The Government is enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner absent a showing that his
removal is reasonably foreseeable—such as communications from foreign governments
and the Government’s anticipated timeline.
4. The Government shall file a status report within 10 business days certifying compliance.
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-02550-KG-JMR Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 4