The dispute centers on whether the government can demonstrate a significant likelihood of the petitioner's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents argue the petitioner has failed to meet his burden under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), while the petitioner contends he cannot be removed because he lacks a passport, national identity card, or residency card.
The court's order addresses competing declarations submitted by both sides. Respondents rely on a declaration from Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer Stephens, while the petitioner submitted his own declaration alleging repeated refusals by Chinese officials to verify his citizenship due to the missing documentation.
Judge Sheppard directed the parties to address specific questions regarding removal efforts. Respondents must detail what efforts, if any, have been attempted since a December 11, 2025 email to HQ RIO, and provide substantiating documentation.
The magistrate also required Respondents to explain how the absence of Chinese travel documents affects their ability to remove the petitioner, particularly given that the petitioner was previously released from detention in or around 2014 because the government was unable to secure such documents.
Respondents have twenty (20) days to submit their responses. The petitioner then has fourteen days to respond, after which the court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary.