Masoud Khan Bek, who has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the El Valle Detention Center in Willacy County, Texas, since an immigration judge ordered his removal from the United States in September 2025, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his continued detention. Bek based his challenge on Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court case that under certain circumstances prohibits the indefinite detention of immigration detainees when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
Judge Rodriguez rejected Bek's request for emergency relief, finding that injunctive relief is 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy' that requires the movant to 'clearly carried the burden of persuasion.' The court noted that to obtain a temporary restraining order, Bek must satisfy four equitable factors: a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial threat of irreparable injury, that the threatened injury outweighs harm to the opposing party, and that relief serves the public interest.
The court delivered its sharpest criticism of Bek's legal strategy, writing that 'to the extent that Petitioner seeks a temporary restraining order preventing his removal or deportation, such relief would be inconsistent with Petitioner's underlying claim.' Rodriguez explained that 'Zadvydas does not prevent deportation or removal, and the actual removal or deportation of an immigration detainee renders a Zadvydas claim moot.'
The case comes as immigration courts nationwide grapple with detention challenges from Afghan nationals following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Many Afghan detainees have argued that the lack of diplomatic relations with the Taliban government makes removal practically impossible, triggering Zadvydas protections against indefinite detention.
Bek had requested an emergency temporary restraining order 'prohibiting Respondents from transporting Petitioner out of this jurisdiction during the pendency of this petition.' However, Rodriguez found this request legally misguided on multiple fronts. As Rodriguez wrote, 'Even if Respondents transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of Texas, this Court would retain jurisdiction' under established Supreme Court precedent in Rumsfeld v. Padilla.
The ruling highlights the complex legal terrain facing immigration attorneys representing Afghan clients. While Zadvydas establishes that prolonged detention without a reasonable prospect of removal violates due process, courts have been reluctant to grant injunctive relief that would effectively prevent removal proceedings from moving forward. The Supreme Court's 2001 Zadvydas decision held that detention beyond six months requires special justification, but courts have interpreted this as limiting detention duration, not removal itself.
Bek's case will now proceed on the merits of his habeas petition, where he will need to demonstrate that his continued detention violates constitutional protections. The government will likely argue that efforts to secure removal to Afghanistan or a third country remain ongoing, making detention reasonable under immigration law.