Fifth Circuit Dismisses Habeas Case After ICE Releases Ethiopian Man

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed an immigration habeas case on October 30, 2026, after the man at the center of it — Maeregu Bezabeh Alamrew, an Ethiopian national — was released from ICE custody. The case ended without a ruling on the merits, but one judge used the dismissal order to issue a sharp warning about how some detainees and their lawyers use federal habeas petitions to delay removal proceedings.

What happened in this case

Alamrew entered the United States without authorization in August 2024. The government detained him and started removal proceedings that same month. In September 2025, an immigration judge (IJ) — the judge who decides deportation cases — found him removable but granted him withholding of removal to Ethiopia. That protection means the government cannot send him back to Ethiopia, but it can remove him to a third country. Alamrew waived his right to appeal that decision. In December 2025, the government told him it planned to remove him to Cameroon. He raised no objection for months.

Almost exactly six months after the removal order became final, Alamrew filed a habeas corpus petition — a legal request asking a federal court to order his release — arguing the government had no realistic plan to remove him. Under the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis, the government generally cannot hold someone in immigration detention indefinitely if removal is not likely in the foreseeable future. The district court initially denied his emergency motions to block removal to Cameroon, finding his arguments contradicted his own habeas claim: he had asked to be released, but then fought the very removal that would have freed him. The district court denied those motions in June 2026. Alamrew appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed as moot after he was released from custody.

Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham wrote separately to criticize what he called an abuse of the habeas process. He argued that filing repeated emergency motions — after receiving months of notice about a planned removal — undermined the immigration system. His statement referenced a broader Fifth Circuit opinion from October 23, 2026, Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, where he wrote at length about what he sees as misuse of immigration habeas petitions in district courts across the circuit.

What this means for people in removal proceedings

This case does not change the law. The Zadvydas rule still stands: if you have a final removal order and the government cannot remove you within a reasonable time, you may have the right to ask a court for release. But this case is a reminder that courts look closely at whether a habeas petition is consistent with what you actually want. Filing motions that contradict your own stated goals — or that courts find to have no basis in law — can damage your credibility and your case.

What to do

• If you have a final removal order and have been in detention for six months or more, talk to an immigration lawyer about whether a Zadvydas habeas petition applies to your situation.
• If the government proposes removing you to a third country and you have a fear of that country, raise that fear immediately and in writing — do not wait months to object.
• Keep records of every notice you receive from ICE or DHS, including dates and how the notice was delivered.
• If you file any motion in federal court, make sure it is consistent with your overall legal strategy — contradictory filings can be used against you.

What to do, step by step — see our guide “Your Rights During an ICE Encounter”.