The petitioner came to the United States as a refugee in 2010, at fifteen, and became a lawful permanent resident two years later. After a 2017 conviction in New York State court, an immigration judge revoked that status and ordered him removed to Iraq, but granted deferral of removal to Iraq under the Convention Against Torture. ICE held him for three months from 20 December 2018 and released him on an order of supervision on 20 March 2019 because it was unable to “deport him to Iraq.” On 9 January 2026, at a “routine check-in,” ICE revoked his order of supervision and sent him to the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, where he remained. A post-order custody review panel recommended on 9 July 2026 that he stay detained. The government’s answer stated that “[d]ue to the grant of deferral of removal to Iraq, ICE is presently seeking to remove [Al Nassar] to a country other than Iraq.” The court held that he had met his initial burden: the government conceded that it released him in 2019 because it could not remove him, and it “does not offer any evidence showing that its ability to deport him has changed whatsoever in the intervening period.” In rebuttal the government relied on a five-month-old declaration and “includes no details about any efforts that it is making to remove Al Nassar to a third country, much less the status of those efforts,” and the custody review recommendation was “just as conclusory.” Rejecting the government’s call for deference, the court wrote: “the Government does not ask the Court to defer to its foreign policy judgment here: It asks the Court to defer to its say-so. Zadvydas does not demand such deference; it counsels its opposite.” It also held that “the Government cannot use Al Nassar’s criminal past to justify detaining him indefinitely when his removal is not reasonably foreseeable.” His continued detention was “neither statutorily nor constitutionally permissible,” and the court ordered his release within 24 hours.
Caution Release was ordered on the detention claim alone. The court did not resolve the parties’ dispute over whether ICE gave sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard before revoking supervision; those claims were dismissed without prejudice as moot. No third country was named in the record. The docket text filed with the decision describes the petition as granted; the decision itself grants it in part. The court’s earlier decision denying the government’s motion to dismiss was not read.
Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) CAT deferral Redetention Revocation of supervision Order of supervision Third-country removal Burden of proof Changed circumstances
The court's own text
Read in full from the text of the decision and order.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.