K.A. v. United States of America
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-00223
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Fahmy K.A. v. United States, Judge Tostrud denied Fahmy K.A.'s petition to be released from immigration detention, finding his removal to Sudan is significantly likely in the foreseeable future.
People detained by U.S. immigration authorities who are challenging continued detention pending removal, particularly those whose removal is delayed by travel document or logistical issues, and who are arguing their removal is not likely in the foreseeable future.
What happened
In Fahmy K.A. v. United States of America (No. 26-cv-223), a person identified as Fahmy K.A. who is detained by immigration authorities asked the federal court to order his release, arguing that the government cannot lawfully continue to hold him because it cannot actually remove him from the country. A magistrate judge had previously recommended rejecting that request, and Fahmy filed objections raising three issues: that he had cooperated with travel document efforts, that the government tried to deport him to the wrong country (Ethiopia instead of Sudan), and that the government had not shown it could actually remove him within a reasonable time.
The court considered each objection and rejected all three. On the cooperation question, the court found the government's evidence that Fahmy was uncooperative more persuasive than Fahmy's contrary claim. On the Ethiopia argument, the court found that because Fahmy had never raised an unlawful-third-country-removal claim in his original petition, it was not properly before the court. On the timeline question, the court noted that Sudan had issued Fahmy a valid travel document, that the government is working to schedule a charter flight, and that Fahmy's own January 2026 refusal to board a plane contributed to the delay.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, overruled all of Fahmy's objections, denied the petition for release, and dismissed the action without prejudice — meaning Fahmy is not barred from filing a new petition if circumstances change.
The detailed version
- K.A. v. United States of America · No. 0:26-cv-00223
- Eric Tostrud
- May 27, 2026
Background
Petitioner Fahmy K.A. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a court order requiring the government to justify holding someone in custody — under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention by immigration authorities. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on April 14, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied. Fahmy filed objections to the R&R, triggering de novo (fresh, independent) review by District Judge Tostrud under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3).
Legal Standard
Under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001), the government generally may not detain a person subject to a removal order indefinitely. If removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, continued detention may be unlawful. Fahmy's petition apparently rested on this framework.
Fahmy's Three Objections and the Court's Rulings
Objection 1: Cooperation with Travel Documents
Fahmy argued that he did not resist obtaining travel documents in the summer of 2025. The court found this unpersuasive in light of evidence submitted by the government (the Respondent) — specifically, a declaration with supporting exhibits — indicating that Fahmy was uncooperative in the travel document process.
Objection 2: Alleged Removal to Ethiopia
Fahmy contended that on January 15, 2026, the government attempted to deport him to Ethiopia rather than Sudan, and that he refused to board the plane because he lacked a removal order to Ethiopia and was not from there. The court acknowledged some ambiguity in the record: an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation officer's declaration stated that Fahmy was told he would be sent to Sudan, but also indicated he was ticketed through Chicago to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with no mention of a connecting flight to Sudan.
Despite this factual uncertainty, the court held that the objection was not properly before it. Fahmy's original habeas petition did not allege that any attempt to remove him to a third country was unlawful — for example, it did not allege lack of proper notice of third-country removal. Because theories not raised in the original petition are ordinarily deemed waived, and because there is a plausibly lawful statutory basis for third-country removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2), the court declined to address this argument. The court cited Dillard v. Watson, No. 17-cv-4802 (JNE/DTS), 2018 WL 3928817, at *5 (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2018).
Objection 3: No Proof of Removal in the Foreseeable Future
Fahmy argued that the government had not provided specifics about Sudan's repatriation processes or any timeline or proof that his removal would occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court rejected this objection as well. The court noted that: (1) the government submitted evidence that Sudan is issuing travel documents to its citizens; (2) Fahmy himself has received a valid travel document from Sudan; (3) evidence indicates efforts are being made to schedule a charter flight; and (4) Fahmy's own conduct on January 15, 2026 — refusing to board a plane — contributed to the delay. Applying the Zadvydas standard, the court concluded that Fahmy's removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Disposition
Judge Tostrud:
- Accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
- Overruled Fahmy's objections.
- Denied Fahmy K.A.'s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
- Dismissed the action without prejudice — meaning the dismissal does not bar Fahmy from filing a new petition if circumstances change.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.