Fahmy K. A. v. United States of America
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-00223
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Fahmy K. A. v. United States, Judge Micko recommended denying the detention challenge and dismissing the action without prejudice.
Fahmy K. A., who challenged his continued immigration detention after a final order of removal. The recommendation would deny his petition and dismiss the action without prejudice, subject to the district court’s further review of objections.
What happened
In Fahmy K. A. v. United States of America, Fahmy K. A. challenged his continued immigration detention after a final order requiring his removal to Sudan. He argued that there was no significant likelihood he would be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, citing the length of his detention and Sudan’s civil war.
The government argued that Fahmy K. A. had delayed removal by refusing to complete travel-document forms and refusing to board a scheduled removal flight. The record showed that Sudan’s embassy issued him a valid travel document, although the parties gave different accounts of what destination officials presented for the January 15, 2026 flight.
Judge Micko recommended denying the petition and dismissing the action without prejudice. Applying the Supreme Court’s detention framework, he concluded that Fahmy K. A. had not shown that removal was unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, particularly because the available evidence showed recent failures to cooperate and did not show that conditions in Sudan made his return virtually impossible.
The detailed version
- Fahmy K. A. v. United States of America · No. 0:26-cv-00223
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 14, 2026
Background
Fahmy K. A., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a final order of removal. An immigration judge ordered his removal from the United States in absentia on July 6, 2023. ICE later placed him under supervision, arrested him on July 15, 2025, and held him in custody in Minnesota.
ICE initially revoked his release based on what it described as changed circumstances and a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. ICE later obtained a valid travel document from the Embassy of Sudan. A removal flight was scheduled for January 15, 2026, but Fahmy K. A. did not leave the United States. The government said he refused to board the flight after being warned about the consequences. Fahmy K. A. gave a different account, saying officials presented papers referring to removal to Ethiopia and that he refused to sign or accept them. Both sides agreed that he did not depart.
Legal standard
The court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis. Under that framework, immigration detention after a final removal order is generally presumed reasonable for six months. After six months, the detained person must provide a good reason to believe that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government must then provide evidence responding to that showing. A person who refuses to cooperate with removal may be detained longer than the presumptively reasonable six-month period.
Analysis
The court concluded that Fahmy K. A. had not met his burden. Although he had been detained for more than six months, the government submitted documents indicating that he failed or refused to cooperate with removal in August 2025, when he did not complete travel-document forms, and in January 2026, when he did not board the scheduled flight. The court found that Fahmy K. A. offered some explanation concerning confusion about his destination but did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the government’s position.
The court also considered Fahmy K. A.’s argument that Sudan’s civil war made return virtually impossible. It found that the government had provided evidence that ICE was working with Sudan to process travel documents and repatriate people, and that Fahmy K. A. had received a valid travel document from the Sudanese Embassy. On this record, the court found no evidence that political conditions in Sudan made his return virtually impossible.
The court did not resolve the validity of ICE’s revocation of Fahmy K. A.’s release because he did not challenge that decision. The court noted that the record concerning the basis for the revocation might be insufficiently developed, but it recommended denial of the petition on the separate issue of whether continued detention was lawful under the removal-detention framework.
Recommendation and procedure
Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that the petition be denied and that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The report and recommendation was not a final order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. The notice stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.