At Pozo Goldstein, LLP, complex removal defense cases are at the heart of what we do. As a leading Miami immigration lawyer firm, we understand that immigration law does not end when a removal order becomes final. In certain cases, federal courts provide a critical safeguard against unlawful or indefinite detention.

On February 23, 2026, our firm secured a significant victory in federal court for a client who had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) despite the government’s long-standing inability to deport him to his country of origin. After filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under Zadvydas v. Davis, the Court granted our petition and ordered his release within 24 hours.

This case demonstrates the importance of experienced federal litigation strategy and the depth of knowledge required to challenge unlawful post-removal detention.

A Removal Order That Could Not Be Enforced

Our client is a native and citizen of Iran who entered the United States in 1999 on a visitor visa. After overstaying, he was placed in removal proceedings in 2000. In 2001, an Immigration Judge ordered him removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal in 2002.

Years later, in 2009, after a Florida criminal case involving a simple battery charge resulted in a “no contest” plea with adjudication withheld, immigration authorities treated the disposition as a conviction for immigration purposes. A Warrant of Removal/Deportation was issued.

However, in 2009, when ICE attempted to effectuate removal, Iran refused to issue travel documents. As a result, ICE released him on an order of supervision. For nearly sixteen years, the government made no meaningful progress toward deportation.

Then, in June 2025, ICE re-detained him in an effort to execute the same removal order that had proven unenforceable more than a decade earlier. He remained in custody for over six months.

The Legal Framework: Post-Removal Detention and Zadvydas

After a removal order becomes final, detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The statute provides a 90-day removal period during which detention is mandatory. However, the U.S. Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), held that detention cannot be indefinite.

The Court established that six months is the presumptively reasonable period of post-removal detention. After that point, if a detainee can show there is “no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the burden shifts to the government to rebut that showing.

Our client had been detained for 193 days when we filed the habeas petition in federal court—well beyond the six-month threshold recognized by the Supreme Court.

But exceeding six months alone is not enough. A skilled Miami order of deportation attorney must also demonstrate that removal is not realistically forthcoming.

Building the Federal Habeas Case

Pozo Goldstein, LLP filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 2, 2026, arguing that our client’s continued detention violated Zadvydas and the Fifth Amendment.

We presented compelling evidence:

• Iran had refused to issue travel documents in 2009.
• For sixteen years, ICE made no successful efforts to deport him.
• After re-detention in 2025, ICE still had no confirmed travel documents.
• The government could not identify any concrete plan for third-country removal.
• There was no evidence that diplomatic circumstances had changed.

The government submitted a declaration from a Deportation Officer claiming that removal was likely in the “reasonably foreseeable future.” However, the record revealed that no renewed travel document request had been submitted until December 31, 2025—more than six months after re-detention. Even then, the request was merely “pending,” with no timeline or assurance of approval.

Additionally, vague references to “exploring third-country removal options” lacked any specifics: no identified country, no diplomatic progress, and no documented acceptance.

The federal court carefully reviewed the record and agreed with our position.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court found that:

• Our client had been detained well beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period.
• He provided good reason to believe that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
• The government failed to rebut that showing with concrete evidence.
• Iran had previously refused to accept him.
• No meaningful progress had been demonstrated toward removal.

Importantly, the Court cited Zadvydas’s instruction that as post-removal confinement grows longer, what counts as “reasonably foreseeable” correspondingly shrinks.

On February 23, 2026, the Court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered ICE to release our client within 24 hours.

He walked out of detention the next day.

Why This Case Was Complex

Cases involving post-removal detention are among the most technically challenging areas of immigration law. They require:

• Deep knowledge of federal statutory detention provisions.
• Mastery of Supreme Court precedent.
• Strategic evidentiary presentation.
• Federal court litigation experience.
• Understanding of ICE procedures and international removal logistics.

At Pozo Goldstein, LLP, we bring a unique advantage to these cases.

Our team includes a former Immigration Judge who understands how removal orders are analyzed from the bench and how federal courts evaluate detention challenges. We also have a former ICE Trial Attorney who understands the government’s litigation strategy, internal processes, and evidentiary practices.

That dual perspective—judicial and prosecutorial—gives our clients a powerful edge when facing prolonged detention.

The Broader Importance of Zadvydas Relief

The Supreme Court in Zadvydas recognized that indefinite detention raises serious constitutional concerns. Immigration detention is civil, not criminal. It is meant to effectuate removal—not to serve as punishment.

When removal is not realistically attainable, detention cannot continue indefinitely.

This case reinforces that principle. The government cannot simply detain someone based on a theoretical possibility of removal. It must show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

When it fails to do so, federal courts will intervene.

What This Means for Individuals with Final Orders of Removal

Many individuals with final removal orders believe they have no legal options once ICE detains them. That is not always true.

If:

• You have been detained for more than six months after a final removal order;
• Your country of origin refuses to issue travel documents;
• Diplomatic barriers prevent deportation;
• ICE cannot demonstrate meaningful progress toward removal;

You may have a viable federal habeas claim.

However, these cases are highly technical and require experienced federal litigation counsel.

A Proven Miami Immigration Lawyer for Complex Removal Defense

Pozo Goldstein, LLP has long been recognized as a trusted Miami immigration lawyer firm handling complex deportation defense, federal court litigation, and post-removal detention cases.

Our attorneys understand both the immigration court system and federal constitutional litigation. As demonstrated in this recent victory, we are prepared to challenge unlawful detention and hold the government to its legal obligations.

If you or a loved one has been detained by ICE following a final removal order, do not assume detention must continue indefinitely. Speak with an experienced Miami order of deportation attorney who understands how to pursue relief in federal court.

Contact Miami Order of Deportation Attorney Pozo Goldstein, LLP

If you are facing prolonged immigration detention or have questions about a removal order, contact Pozo Goldstein, LLP today at (305) 856-2292. Our experienced immigration litigation team is ready to evaluate your case and fight for your freedom.

When liberty is at stake, experience matters. Call our Miami immigration law firm at 305-856-0400.