## Facts

- Ahilan Nadarajah, a Tamil national of Sri Lanka, fled after being repeatedly tortured during Sri Lanka’s civil conflict.
- Upon arrival in the United States, he was taken into immigration custody and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- An Immigration Judge found Nadarajah credible and granted asylum and CAT relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and the government’s challenges were rejected.
- Despite prevailing in immigration proceedings and never being charged with a crime, Nadarajah remained in civil immigration detention for almost five years.
- The government asserted continued detention was justified by national-security and terrorism concerns, including alleged ties to the LTTE, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
- Nadarajah filed a federal habeas petition challenging the legality of his prolonged detention; the district court denied relief, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the immigration detention statutes (including 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1226), interpreted in light of *Zadvydas v. Davis*, authorize nearly five years of detention where the noncitizen has been granted protection and removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
2. Whether terrorism- or national-security-related detention provisions (including 8 U.S.C. § 1226a) independently authorize Nadarajah’s prolonged detention on these facts.
3. Whether habeas corpus authorizes a federal court to order release when detention lacks statutory authorization.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief.
- It held the government lacked statutory authority under the general immigration detention statutes to detain Nadarajah for nearly five years under these circumstances.
- It rejected the government’s reliance on terrorism-related detention provisions as inapplicable or insufficient to authorize the prolonged detention at issue.
- It ordered that a writ of habeas corpus issue and that Nadarajah be released on appropriate conditions pending any further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Civil immigration detention must be authorized by statute; generalized national-security assertions cannot substitute for clear congressional authorization.
- Under the *Zadvydas* reasonableness framework, immigration detention may not continue beyond a reasonable period when there is no realistic prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Prolonged detention is especially suspect where the noncitizen has prevailed in protection proceedings and administrative adjudicators have credited the individual’s account and granted relief.
- Habeas corpus provides a remedy to test the legality of detention itself; when detention is unauthorized, release (subject to conditions) is an appropriate judicial remedy.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the government could not continue to detain an asylum seeker for nearly five years without statutory authority, found the asserted terrorism-related detention provisions inapplicable on the record presented, and granted habeas relief by ordering conditional release.


Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006)