Asmerom v. Martinez et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ARAM KAFEL ASMEROM, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00793
§
GABRIEL MARTINEZ, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The petitioner, Aram Kafel Asmerom, 	is currently 	detained by United States
Department of Homeland 	Security, Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	("ICE")
officials pursuant to a final order ofremoval. Through counsel, petitioner filed an amended
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging his continued
detention. Doc. No. 6. Respondents have filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No.
9) , and the Petitioner filed a reply in opposition (Doc. No. 10). 	The Court has carefully
considered the pleadings, submissions of the parties, and applicable law and GRANTS
habeas relief for the reasons that follow .
I. 	BACKGROUND
Asmerom is a citizen of Eritrea who was admitted into the United States as a refugee
on or around July 31 , 1991. 	Doc. No. 6 at 4. 	He became a legal permanent resident. 	Id.
In 1997, Asmerom was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to two years in
pnson. This conviction formed the basis of removal proceedings against him. Id.
1/ 10
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

In 2000, his removal proceedings concluded, and he was granted withholding of
removal to Eritrea and Ethiopia. 1 Doc. No. 6- 1. 	After he was granted withholding of
removal, Asmerom was convicted of several other offenses that he characterizes as less
serious than his aggravated assault conviction. 2 He asserts that he has had no convictions
since 2021 and was gainfully employed with Ceva Logistics at the time he was detained.
He claims that he has turned his life around in the last five years and has a wife and child
who are United States citizens. 	Doc. No. 6 at 5. 	Asmerom claims that he has fully
cooperated with ICE officials to apply for travel documents, but no third country has agreed
to accept his removal. Id. at 5-6. Respondents do not dispute that Asmerom has cooperated
and that no third country has agreed to accept his removal.
On November 25, 2025, while attending a routine check-in as required by his Order
of Supervision, Asmerom was detained by ICE. 	Id at 6. He has been detained now for
over six months. 	Among other things, Asmerom argues that his detention is indefinite
because he cannot be deported to Eritrea or Ethiopia based on the withholding of removal
and Respondents have not identified any third country willing to accept his removal.
1 Petitioner points out several inconsistencies in Respondents' motion and attached evidence. The
undisputed facts are that Asmerom is subject to a final order of removal and has been granted
withholding of removal to Eritrea and Ethiopia and he has been detained longer than six months.
As the petitioner points out, the central inquiry is whether his removal is significantly likely in the
reasonably foreseeable future, not the exact dates of events or details of his criminal record, where
the Respondents do not assert that he is a danger to society if released on an Order of Supervision.
2 Asmerom reports that he was convicted of driving while intoxicated five times (in 2001 , 2008,
2019, 2019, and 2021); misdemeanor terroristic threats twice (2004 & 2013); trespassing twice
(2007 & 2012); driving while license suspended (2007) and disorderly conduct (2006). Doc. No.
6 at 5.
2 / 10
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

Respondents move for summary judgment, contending that Petitioner's detention is
lawful and that he does not show that removal is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable
future. 	Doc. No. 9. 	They also genera ll y assert that they are working with several dozen
countries to try to remove him to a third country. Id. at 7; Doc. No. 9-1 at 8.
II. 	LEGALSTANDARDS
A. 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Section 2241 (c)(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code "applies to persons held
'in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States."' Muna/ v. Geren, 553
U.S. 674, 686 (2006) (citing § 224l(c)(l)). "An individual is held ' in custody' by the
United States when the United States official charged with his detention has ' the power to
produce' him." Id. (quoting Wales v. Whitney, 5 S. Ct. 1050, 1054 (1885); see also 28
U.S .C. § 2243 ("The writ ... shall be directed to the person having custody of the person
detained" )).
Habeas corpus is available to a person challenging the legality of immigration-
related detention. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 ,5 17 (2003); Gudiel Polanco v. Garland,
839 F. App 'x 804, 805 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that where the alien challenged his
detention rather than any removal order, his challenge "must be brought pursuant to a
habeas corpus petition" in district court). Courts retain jurisdiction to review an alien 's
detention "insofar as that detention presents constitutional issues, such as those raised in a
habeas petition." Oyelude v. Chertoff, 125 F. App'x 543 , 546 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished
op.) (citation omitted). 	Where, as here, a habeas petition '" raises only issues of law, or
3 / 10
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

questions regarding the legal implications of undisputed facts,"' a court need not hold a
hearing to decide the case and grant habeas relief. See Gomez Vallecios v. Noem, No. E P-
25-CV-573-KC, 2025 WL 3853219, at* 1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2025) (quoting Tijerina v.
Thornburgh , 884 F.2d 861, 866 (5th Cir. 1989) and concluding that the petition could be
granted without a hearing because it presented questions of law and facts were resolved in
favor of the respondents); see also Alves da Silva v. 	US. 	Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, No. 25-CV-284-LM-TSM, 2025 WL 2778083, at* 1 (D.N.H. Sept. 29, 2025)
(noting that a "petition 'may be resolved on the merits without [an evidentiary] hearing
when, as here, the material facts are not in dispute. "' (citation omitted)).
B. Summary Judgment
To be entitled to summary judgment, the pleadings and summary judgment evidence
must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 	FED. R. Crv. P. 56. 	The moving party bears the
burden of initially pointing out to the court the basis of the motion and identifying the
portions of the record demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue for trial. 	Duckett v.
City of Cedar Park, Tex ., 950 F.2d 272,276 (5th Cir. 1992). Thereafter, "the burden shifts
to the nonmoving party to show with 's ignificant probative evidence' that there exists a
genuine issue of material fact." 	Hamilton v. Seque Software, Inc. , 232 F.3d 473 , 477 (5th
Cir. 2000) (quoting Conkling v. Turner , 18 F.3d 1285, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994)). "Because this
case arises in a summary judgment posture, [the court] view[s] the facts in the light most
favorable to [Petitioner], the nonmoving party." Canady v. Davis, 687 F. App'x 362, 365
4 / 10
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

(5th Cir. 2017) (quoting City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 1769
(2015)).
Ill 	DISCUSSION
Asmerom 	contends 	that 	his 	continued 	detention 	violat es 	due 	process 	under
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), because there is no significant likelihood that he
will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. 	He argues that he has shown good
reason to believe that his removal is not likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future
and that Respondents fail to rebut that showing.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law." U.S . Const. amend. V. 	In Zadvydas , the Supreme Court held that the INA does
not authorize "indefinite, perhaps permanent, detention" of noncitizens subject to final
orders of removal. 533 U.S. at 699. The Court explained that " [a] statute permitting
indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem" and that
"[f]reedom from imprisomnent- 	from government custody, detention, or other fonns of
physical restraint- 	lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects." Id. (citing Foucha
v. Louisiana, 504 U .S . 71 , 80 (1992)).
"When an alien has been found to be unlawfully present in the United States and a
final order of removal has been entered, the Government ordinarily secures the alien's
removal during a subsequent 90-day statutory 'removal period,' during which time the
alien normally is held in custody." 533 U.S. at 682. Inadmissible noncitizens or those with
5 / 10
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

certain criminal convictions may be detained beyond the removal period, 8 U.S.C . §
123 l(a)(6), but the statute "limits an alien' s post-removal-period detention to a period
reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States," and "does
not permit indefinite detention." Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689. 	The Court established a "6-
month presumption" of reasonableness following the issuance of a removal order. 	Id. at
701.
After 	the 	six-month 	period 	of "presumptively 	reasonable" 	detention 	ends, 	a
petitioner seeking release from detention must show there is "good reason to believe that
there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. " Id.; see
also Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 543-44 (5th Cir. 2006) (denying aZadvydas claim
where petitioner offers "nothing beyond conclusory statements"). Once a petitioner meets
this burden, the burden shifts to the respondents to "respond with evidence sufficient to
rebut that showing." Zadvyda s, 533 U.S. at 701.
It is undisputed that Asmerom was detained in November 2025 pursuant to a final
order of removal. 	To date, he has been detained longer than the six-month presumptively
reasonable period set forth in Zadvydas.
In addition, the Court finds that Asmerom has met his burden to show that there is
good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future. 	First, the only countries identified by the Respondents for removal are
Eritrea and Ethiopia, and he cannot be removed to either of those countries because he has
been granted withholding of removal. 	To the extent that a detention officer indicated to
6 / 10
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

Asmerom that he might be removed to Uganda, Asmerom presents evidence to show that
Uganda is not accepting individuals with a criminal record. 	See Doc. No. 10-1. 	Second,
Asmerom' s uncontroverted facts show that he has cooperated with ICE to try to obtain
travel documents, and ICE has identified no specific country that has indicated any
willingness to accept his removal.
Courts have found that a petitioner meets his burden to show good reason where he
alleges non-conclusory facts , Andrade, 459 F3d at 543-44; where he alleges that he
received withholding ofremoval to his home country and that ICE had not identified a third
country willing to accept him; or where he had a deferral and travel documents had not
been secured from any third country. 	Se e, e.g. , Trejo v. Warden of ERO El Paso East
Montana, 807 F. Supp. 3d 697, 705-06 (W.D. Tex. 2025); Baltodano v. Bondi, 815 F.
Supp. 3d 1191 , 1198 (W .D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2025).
The 	Court 	finds 	that 	Asmerom's 	allegations 	are 	not 	conclusory 	and 	instead
specifically show that he has been granted withholding of removal and cannot be removed
to his home country or to Ethiopia; Respondents have not identified a third country willing
to accept him; and he has cooperated with ICE to try to obtain travel documents. Doc. No.
6 at 5-6. 	Asmerom has met his burden under Zadvydas to show that there is good reason
to believe that removal is not reasonably likely in the foreseeable future.
Because Petitioner has shown good reason, the burden then shifts to Respondents to
"respond with evidence sufficient to rebut [a petitioner' s] showing." Zadvydas , 533 U. S.
at 701. "[G]eneralized statements about removal efforts and averments of likelihood of
7110
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

removal alone are insufficient to satisfy respondents ' evidentiary burden." Chang v. Perez,
et al. , No. 5:25-cv-294, slip op. at 9 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2026) (citing Zamanpour v. Perez,
No. 5:25-cv-224, slip op. at 16 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 24, 2025)); see also Baltodano, 815 F.
Supp. 3d at 1198-99. Likewise, this burden is not satisfied by a pending request for travel
documents alone. 	Trejo, 807 F. Supp.3d at 706.
Respondents do not meet their burden to show that removal is likely anytime soon,
let alone in the reasonably foreseeable future. 	They do not contest that Asmerom has
cooperated with efforts to obtain travel documents. 	They do not dispute that they cannot
remove him to Eritrea or Ethiopia, and they do not name any specific third countries to
which they have made any inquiries. Their attestations that they are "working with several
dozen countries" are conclusory. 	Respondents do not allege that any third country has
agreed to accept Petitioner' s removal and fail to rebut Petitioner' s showing of good reason
to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future.
The Court finds that Petitioner's continued detention violates due process because
there 	is 	no 	significant 	likelihood 	of removal 	in 	the 	reasonably 	foreseeable 	future.
Accordingly, Asmerom is entitled to relief on the indefinite detention claims in his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the Court finds that there is no significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, Asmerom must be released. 	Zadvydas,
533 U.S. 701 (holding that a noncitizen "may be held in confinement until it has been
8 / 10
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future"). 	The Court orders his release subject to the conditions set forth below.
IV. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
9 / 10
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED.
2. 	Petitioner 's Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. No. 6), is
GRANTED.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
4. 	Respondents must either remove Petitioner from the United States or release
Petitioner by July 10, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. in a public place agreed on by the
parties within two days of the date this Order is entered, under the same
conditions that were in effect in his previous Order of Supervision. Respondents
must notify his counsel of the exact time and location of release at least four
hours before his release.
5. 	Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a showing that there has been a
material change in circumstances, for example, a showing that Petitioner's
documents are ready, that a third country has agreed to accept Petitioner, and
that Petitioner has been provided notice of that third country and an opportunity
to object to the third country removal.
6. 	The 5-day notice provision from the Court's February 24 Order, (Doc. No. 7),
REMAINS IN EFFECT. The parties shall provide the Court with a status update
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

10 / 10
concerning Petitioner's release by July 13, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The parties should
also notify the Court of the condition s, if any, of his release.
7. 	By July 17, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status update and indicate whether
this case may be closed.
SO ORDERED.
t l~
SIGNED on this 	day of June 2025.	----
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00793 Document 11 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10