Decisions

E.D. Cal. February 25, 2026 Investigating. No reporter citation established. Third country: No third country was ever identified by the government. The injunction runs against removal to any of them without a fear hearing first.

Sam Sarfarzi-Esfahari had a final order of removal to Iran dating from 8 October 2004, deferral of removal under the Convention against Torture, and had been living under an Order of Supervision. He was re-detained. The court held that re-detaining him under the written policy he challenged violated due process, granted the petition, and ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days at which the government would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was a flight risk or a danger, failing which he was to be released. It separately barred the government from removing him to any third country without first giving him an individualised opportunity to say that he feared that country. On the question whether a challenge to a written policy is ripe before any particular third country has been named, the court held that it is, quoting the Ninth Circuit: where the harm alleged is directly traceable to a written policy there is an implicit likelihood of its repetition in the immediate future.

Third-country removal CAT deferral CAT Order of supervision Redetention Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Notice Due process Standing Ripeness Bond hearing Burden of proof Compliance with regulations ICE policy of 9 July 2025

Caution A district court decision. It binds the parties to it and nobody else. The relief has two halves and they are not the same: the detention half was granted in a narrower form than the magistrate judge had recommended, because the district judge ordered a hearing rather than immediate release. Note also the date. A document of 26 January 2026 in this case is findings and recommendations by a magistrate judge, which is a proposal and not an order. The operative decision is the order of 25 February 2026 adopting it in part. Citing the January date as the grant of relief would be wrong.

W.D. Wash. February 3, 2026 818 F. Supp. 3d 1235; 2026 WL 408098 Third country: None identified. The government was seeking removal to Vietnam.

A lawful permanent resident admitted in March 1995, ordered removed to Vietnam in March 2008 and released on an order of supervision in April 2009 because the government could not obtain travel documents, was re-detained in June 2025. The court ordered his immediate release. It recorded that the government had failed to remove him in almost eighteen years, that seven months after re-detaining him it had still not sent a travel document request to Vietnam, and that its declaration described how the process works in general but said nothing about how it would work in his case. On the reasons given for re-detaining him the court was blunt. The government said he was a threat to public safety. His most recent conviction was six years earlier, and the court called it incomprehensible that immigration authorities would decide six years later that his re-detention was warranted on that basis. The government also said he could be removed quickly. Seven months without a travel document request made that justification implausible. On the process used, the court found no document supporting the claim that notice was given at re-detention, no mention of the required informal interview at that time, and a corrected revocation letter served more than two months later, which could in no way be deemed timely. The court then went further than the regulations. Even assuming full compliance with them, it held, those limited procedures do not provide the process due under the Fifth Amendment, following E.A.T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316. It ordered that the government may not re-detain him without first giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard before an immigration judge. The government argued the third-country claims were not ripe because it was trying to remove him to Vietnam. The court rejected that. Little in the government's own materials suggested Vietnam was likely to issue travel documents, and that, taken with the policy itself and what the court described as the recent third-country removals of hundreds of immigrants, gave rise to an imminent threat. On the merits the court found no basis to deviate from Baltodano, Abubaka and Nguyen v. Scott, and ordered that he not be removed to any country other than Vietnam without notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond in reopened removal proceedings before an immigration judge, or to any country where he is likely to face imprisonment or harm. The government offered no substantive response at all to the claim that the programme is punitive.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Redetention Revocation of supervision Ripeness Third-country removal Notice Reopened removal proceedings Unconstitutional punishment Wong Wing Government silence on the merits

Caution A district court decision, binding only on the parties, and decided by a magistrate judge. Two features are worth holding onto. First, the government again offered no substantive answer to the punitive claim. That silence now appears in Nguyen v. Scott, Abubaka v. Bondi, Baltodano v. Bondi, Pham v. Warden and this case. In Pham a court treated the equivalent silence as an admission under Rule 8(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, courts in this district do not agree about re-detention. This court ordered that there be no re-detention without a hearing before an immigration judge. Five weeks later, in Saadhom v. Bondi, another judge of the same court refused that exact request, holding she could not conclude that due process requires a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge in every case. Both decisions stand. The punitive analysis this decision follows originates in Nguyen v. Scott, decided at the preliminary injunction stage on 21 August 2025 and voluntarily dismissed by its petitioner the following month after an agreement between the parties, so it never reached a merits decision. That does not make the findings wrong, and five courts have now adopted them, but anyone relying on this line should know where it begins. The court also recorded, in a footnote, that the government's third-country removal policy was never provided to it in this case. It worked from the text set out in Nguyen v. Scott.

W.D. Wash. December 23, 2025 817 F. Supp. 3d 1102; 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265398 Third country: Mauritania and then Uganda, by successive statements of intent. Neither was ever pursued to the point of a travel document.

An Egyptian man was ordered released after two hundred and twenty-five days in immigration detention. An immigration judge had denied his asylum claim and ordered him removed to Egypt, but granted withholding of removal under the Convention against Torture, which meant a finding that if returned he would more likely than not be tortured. Both sides waived appeal. He has no citizenship or significant ties to any other country, no travel document had been obtained for anywhere, and no country had been identified as willing to take him. On detention the government offered no response at all. It conceded the six month period had passed, then ignored the burden that shifts to it. The court traced what the government had actually done. In May 2025 an officer told him of an intent to attempt removal to Mauritania. A consular request in June was unsuccessful. By September that plan had apparently been abandoned, because on 2 September, in the final days of the ninety day removal period, he was served with a notice of intent to remove him to Uganda. There was no evidence that any step was ever taken towards Uganda: no travel document sought, no interest shown by Uganda, no communication with Uganda about him at all, and Uganda was not among the consulates contacted. Then on 15 December, thirteen days after this petition was filed, he was handed a Mauritanian travel document application. The court said the government cannot overcome a pending petition by handing over an application and making a request to headquarters it could have made months earlier. The court rejected the argument that he lacked standing to challenge third-country removal. Standing was obvious, because the government conceded it was pursuing his removal to third countries. It added that the government's own assertion that he "has not independently raised fear in response to a notice of removal to Uganda" showed he had already been injured, because due process requires that a person be asked whether they fear the destination rather than left to volunteer it. It also rejected the argument that his membership of the D.V.D. class barred individual relief. The order sets out the 9 July 2025 ICE memorandum in detail, and it is the fullest account of that policy in this register. Where the United States has received diplomatic assurances the Department of State believes credible, a person "may be removed without the need for further procedures." Where it has not, an officer serves a notice of removal naming the country, but the policy states that ICE "will not affirmatively ask whether the [noncitizen] is afraid of being removed to the country of removal." ICE will generally wait at least twenty-four hours before removing, and in exigent circumstances only six. If the person does not affirmatively state a fear within twenty-four hours, they are removed. The court held these procedures fall far short of what due process requires, and found that the government had misrepresented what protections the policy actually gives. The punitive claim was refused without prejudice. The court recorded the petitioner's allegation, drawn from reporting in The New Yorker, that the government had attempted and completed an end run around the Convention against Torture by deporting a group of people to Ghana, which then sent them on to their countries of citizenship despite their fears of persecution. It noted that he did not substantiate the allegations, that the government did not deny them, and that courts in this district and across the country have recognised that the government is intentionally removing individuals to countries where they will be imprisoned. Even so, on these pleadings it had no sufficient basis to find the programme unconstitutional as a whole or punitive as applied to him, because the cases so finding were specific to a particular population and particular destination countries.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) CAT Withholding of removal Standing Ripeness Third-country removal Notice Reopened removal proceedings Diplomatic assurances ICE policy of 9 July 2025 Unconstitutional punishment D.V.D. class action

Caution A district court decision, binding only on the parties. The petitioner won release and the notice protections, and lost on punishment, without prejudice. The refusal follows the same line as Saadhom v. Bondi and Vashchuk v. Bondi. The court did not doubt that some of these removals are punishment. It said the findings to that effect were tied to particular populations and particular destinations, and that this petitioner had not connected himself to them. The Uganda and Mauritania notices recorded here are court records of what the government said it intended, not findings about conditions in either country. The court's point about Uganda was that nothing was ever done about it, which raises its own question about why the notice was served at all in the last days of the removal period. The account of the Ghana removals is the petitioner's allegation as the court recorded it, sourced to a magazine article. It is not a finding. The findings on Ghana are in D.A. v. Noem, recorded separately in this register.

D.D.C. December 7, 2009 672 F. Supp. 2d 49; 2009 WL 4572732

Three Rwandan nationals, ethnic Hutus, had been held for two years by the Rwandan Patriotic Army at Kami camp, which they described as “an unofficial detention center to which only the RPA had access,” where they say they were subjected to “brutal physical and psychological torture.” Each confessed. Extradited to the United States in 2003 to stand trial, they succeeded in having those confessions suppressed as coerced and as products of torture, United States v. Karake, 443 F. Supp. 2d 8, 85-86 (D.D.C. 2006), and the indictment was dismissed in February 2007. In the removal proceedings that followed, “[t]he immigration court ordered that the plaintiffs be removed to Rwanda, but granted their applications for deferral of removal under the CAT.” Then, as the court records: “On August 25, 2009, ICE notified the plaintiffs that it was considering terminating their deferrals of removal based on diplomatic assurances the Department of State had received from Rwanda’s Chief Prosecutor and the Rwandan Minister of Justice that none of the plaintiffs would be tortured if removed to Rwanda.” A footnote adds that Rwanda also assured the Department of State that any prosecution would comply with Rwandan and international law “and that none of the plaintiffs’ previously coerced confessions would be used against them.” ICE gave them until 6 November 2009 to submit written evidence why the assurances should not be credited. They argued that the process denied due process because there was no hearing before a neutral and impartial decision-maker and no guarantee that they would receive the full record or be notified of a final decision. The court denied a preliminary injunction on ripeness grounds, no final agency decision having been made.

CAT deferral Termination of deferral Diplomatic assurances Due process Neutral decisionmaker Ripeness

Caution The court decided nothing about the reliability of Rwanda’s assurances or the lawfulness of terminating a CAT deferral. It held only that the claim was not yet ripe. Its closing footnote states: “The court appreciates the very real danger the plaintiffs may face if they are returned to Rwanda, and reiterates that this decision was made on ripeness grounds alone.” The government stipulated it would not remove the plaintiffs before 8 December 2009 and said it would not remove them sooner than thirty days after a final decision. Whether the deferrals were ultimately terminated, and whether these three men were removed, the Coalition is still investigating.