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-00954-KG-JMR
DORA CASTRO, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Ahmed Shedid Mohamed Ghouneim’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, the Government’s Response, Doc. 10, and
Petitioner’s reply, Doc. 11. Petitioner seeks his immediate release, arguing that he has been
detained beyond the six month presumptively reasonable period without a significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Doc. 1 at 8–9. For the reasons below, the Court
grants the petition.
The Court is authorized to issue a writ of habeas corpus 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 v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”), when a noncitizen is ordered removed, the Government must execute the removal
within a 90-day “removal period.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Although the Government may
continue to detain an “inadmissible” noncitizen beyond the 90-day removal period, see
§ 1231(a)(6), it may not detain them “indefinitely.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699. A six-month
1The background facts are set forth in the Order issued in Ghouneim v. Flores et al., No.
26-cv-0115, (D.N.M. Feb. 11, 2026). The Court incorporates those facts herein.
Case 2:26-cv-00954-KG-JMR Document 12 Filed 05/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
detention is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 701. After six months, if the noncitizen “provides
good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that
showing.” Id.
This Court dismissed Petitioner’s first petition for a writ of habeas corpus as the
presumptively reasonable six month period of detention had not expired. Ghouneim v. Flores et
al., No. 26-cv-0115, (D.N.M. Feb. 11, 2026) (concluding that Petitioner’s 5 month detention fell
within the six month presumptively reasonable period). The Government concedes that the six
month period has since expired, but maintains that Petitioner “has not provided good reason to
believe there is a lack of significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
Doc. 10 at 4. The Court disagrees.
Petitioner has met his burden of showing that there is no significant likelihood of removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future. Petitioner’s removal became final on September 15, 2025,
but there is no evidence the Government has made any efforts to secure Petitioner’s removal. As
Petitioner highlights, the Government has not obtained travel documents or identified any third
country willing to accept Petitioner. Doc. 1 at 8.
The Government has produced little evidence to rebut Petitioner’s showing. The
deportation officer for DHS outlines few steps taken towards removal, stating that DHS is
“actively working...on avenues to remove aliens to a third country.” Doc. 10-1 at 2. Such
statements are insufficient to demonstrate that removal is reasonably foreseeable. See e.g., Yan-
Ling X. v. Lyons, 2025 WL 3123793, at * 4 (E.D. Cal.) (“The phrase ‘significant likelihood’
requires something more than a mere possibility that removal will occur.”); Momennia v. Bondi,
2025 WL 3011896, at *10 (W.D. Okla.) (“[M]ere intent to find a third country,” absent “specific
Case 2:26-cv-00954-KG-JMR Document 12 Filed 05/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
communications between the United States and an identified country” is “too speculative to
permit indefinite detention”).
Lastly, the Court rejects the Government’s request that it be allowed the opportunity to
show that Petitioner’s continued detention is necessary based on “special circumstances or
because Petitioner is especially dangerous.” Id. Details concerning Petitioner’s criminal history
are not relevant to the Court’s Zadvydas analysis. In fact, in Zadvydas, the Court noted that
Zadvydas had a “long criminal record, involving drug crimes, attempted robbery, attempted
burglary, and theft.” 533 U.S. at 684. In concluding that Zadvydas’ continued detainment
pending removal violated due process, the Court implicitly rejected the notion that criminal
history can serve as a basis “to hold indefinitely in confinement an alien ordered removed.”
Id. at 697.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1. Because
the Court grants relief under the INA, it declines to address Petitioner’s other claims. The
Government shall file a status report within ten business days of this Order confirming that
Petitioner has been released.
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-00954-KG-JMR Document 12 Filed 05/14/26 Page 3 of 3