{"id":394,"date":"2026-01-23T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-23T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=394"},"modified":"2026-01-23T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T12:00:00","slug":"muradyan-warden-zadvydas-six-month-window-third-country-removal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=394","title":{"rendered":"Muradyan v. Warden \u2014 S.D. Cal. Denies Habeas Petition by Armenian Detainee Awaiting Third-Country Removal Within Zadvydas Six-Month Period"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Muradyan v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-23<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:26-cv-00063<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Section 2241 habeas, Zadvydas v. Davis, post-removal-period detention, six-month presumptively reasonable period, third-country removal, medical care<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Gevorg Muradyan is a native of Armenia who arrived in the United States in December 2024. An asylum officer made a positive reasonable-fear finding, and Muradyan was placed in removal proceedings and applied for asylum and withholding of removal. In September 2025, an immigration judge ordered him removed but granted withholding of removal to Armenia \u2014 meaning the United States cannot send him back to Armenia, but can remove him to a different country. Because Muradyan waived his right to appeal, the removal order became administratively final the same day.<\/p>\n

Since then, Muradyan has been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center while ICE searches for a third country willing to receive him. As of January 2026, ICE had not obtained a travel document but represented that it was “diligently” looking and believed there was a “significant likelihood” of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Muradyan filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241, arguing that his continued detention violated the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas v. Davis<\/em> decision and also raising concerns about his medical care.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied the petition without prejudice but rejected several of the government’s arguments along the way.<\/p>\n

On jurisdiction, the government argued that 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252 bars the court from reviewing his detention. The court squarely rejected that argument. Zadvydas<\/em> itself held that \u00a7 2241 habeas remains available for statutory and constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention. The court therefore had jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

On the merits, the court held that Muradyan’s claim was not yet ripe. Detention after a final removal order is governed by 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1231(a), which provides a 90-day removal period followed by a longer period of presumptively reasonable detention under Zadvydas<\/em>. Under Zadvydas<\/em>, the petitioner has the initial burden of showing that he has been detained for more than six months \u2014 the presumptively reasonable period. Muradyan had been detained less than six months since his September 30, 2025 final order. The court therefore could not yet conclude that his detention was unreasonable, citing recent Southern District of California decisions (such as Khalilova v. Smith<\/em>) that find pre-six-month petitions unripe.<\/p>\n

The court also addressed Muradyan’s complaints about medical care. Citing the Supreme Court’s Muhammad v. Close<\/em> decision, the court explained that complaints about “circumstances of confinement” \u2014 like medical care \u2014 must generally be brought as civil-rights actions under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983, not as habeas petitions. Habeas is reserved for challenges to the validity or duration of confinement itself. The court therefore could not order release based on medical-care concerns.<\/p>\n

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Muradyan to refile if he remains detained after the six-month presumptively reasonable window passes.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n