A federal court rules nine-month immigration detention violates legal limits on removals.
Newark, NJ – A federal judge in New Jersey has granted a habeas corpus petition filed by Brazilian national Lucas De Souza-Ferreira, ordering relief from continued immigration detention after finding his removal is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The ruling comes after De Souza-Ferreira remained in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for approximately nine months following his detention in June 2025. The court determined that his prolonged detention exceeded legal limits established under federal law governing post-removal confinement.
Court applies Supreme Court limits on detention
The court evaluated the case under the framework established in Zadvydas v. Davis, which restricts how long noncitizens may be detained after a final order of removal. While the law allows for a 90-day removal period, detention beyond six months becomes presumptively unreasonable if removal is not foreseeable.
“Once the ninety-day removal period of Section 1231(a) has passed, and after ‘removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute,’” the court wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.
De Souza-Ferreira had previously been removed to Brazil in 2018 but reentered the United States. After being detained again in 2025, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal to Brazil under the Convention Against Torture, preventing his return to that country.
Key Points
- Federal judge granted habeas petition challenging ICE detention
- Court found removal not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future
- Petitioner had been detained for approximately nine months
Government claims rejected on future removal
Federal immigration officials argued that removal to a third country was likely and justified continued detention. ICE had denied humanitarian parole and maintained that the petitioner posed a flight risk.
However, the court found those assertions insufficient to justify extended detention, particularly given the absence of clear evidence that removal could occur soon.
The opinion noted that indefinite or prolonged detention without a realistic prospect of removal raises constitutional concerns and is not authorized under federal statute. The court concluded that continued detention in this case violated those limits, granting the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
De Souza-Ferreira’s case underscores ongoing legal scrutiny over immigration detention practices, particularly when removal cannot be carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
