Jalal Al Chair is a Druze Syrian who is battling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to avoid being sent back to Venezuela—a country he fled in 2007 and also escaped from in 2024—after being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Al Chair filed a habeas corpus petition against several immigration officials, claiming that his prolonged detention violates his constitutional rights and federal law, as there is no reasonable likelihood of his removal in the foreseeable future.
The presiding judge deemed that the allegedly reasonable six-month period had indeed been exceeded—according to Supreme Court jurisprudence—shifting the burden of proof to the defendants.
The court ordered the defendants to present a justified cause by October 15, 2025, explaining the reasons why the petition should not be granted. They must also address issues related to possible removal to third countries like Turkey or Jordan.
Jalal Al Chair Challenges Prolonged Detention by ICE
Jalal Al Chair’s legal case against John Cantu and others aims to contest the legality of his prolonged detention by U.S. immigration authorities. Therefore, he presented a habeas corpus petition to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
This petition is based on two main arguments:
- His detention exceeded the allegedly reasonable six-month period established by the Supreme Court in the case of Zadvydas v. Davis, with no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future, which constitutes a violation of his rights under immigration law and the Fifth Amendment.
- Attempts to remove him to third countries like Turkey or Jordan violate his due process rights, as he has not been given the opportunity to express his fear of persecution in those countries.
The court recognized the validity of these arguments, determining that the petitioner’s detention surpassed the six-month threshold, and consequently, the burden of proof shifted to the government defendants, who are required to show why the petition should not be granted. The deadline for this is set for October 15, 2025.
The court order mandated that the government’s response be supported by documentary evidence and address specific issues regarding the petitioner’s rights if released and re-detained, as well as his possible inclusion in a relevant class action lawsuit.
Jalal Al Chair Fears Persecution Due to His Druze Religion
Jalal Al Chair is a member of the Druze religious minority, a central factor in his fear of persecution. He fled Syria to Venezuela in 2007, where he remained until 2024, when he too escaped to the United States and presented himself at the border seeking asylum, successfully passing a credible fear interview.
However, Jalal Al Chair’s requests—suspension of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture—were denied, and his removal order became final on January 29, 2025.
The immigration judge ordered his removal to Syria, with an alternate removal order to Venezuela. Meanwhile, he continues to be detained by ICE at the Eloy Detention Center.
Core Arguments of Jalal Al Chair’s Petition
Jalal Al Chair presents three claims for relief, which are based on two main legal arguments:
Illegal Prolonged Detention
The petitioner argues that his detention violates federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since there is no reasonable likelihood that his removal will occur in the foreseeable future.
Legal Grounding
The petition is based on the Supreme Court precedent in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which establishes that post-removal order detention cannot be indefinite and presumes that a six-month period is reasonably necessary to effectuate deportation.
Exceeding the Deadline
The petitioner’s detention since January 29, 2025, has exceeded this six-month threshold.
Lack of Removal Efforts
The petitioner claims that he is “unaware of any significant efforts by ICE to obtain travel documents for his removal to any country where he wouldn’t fear persecution or torture.”
Due Process Violation Due to Removal to a Third Country
Jalal Al Chair asserts that his detention for the purpose of being removed to a third country violates his due process rights because he has not received proper notification or the opportunity to request protection against removal to that country.
Attempts to Remove to Turkey and Jordan
An ICE officer requested him to sign Form I-229a to authorize his removal to Turkey or Jordan, stating that they “had obtained approval from both countries.”
Petitioner’s Refusal
Al Chair refused to sign the form due to being a member of the Druze religious minority and fearing persecution or torture in those countries. He argues that he wasn’t provided a process to present and defend that claim.
Court Order and Analysis
In its order dated October 8, 2025, the court took significant actions based on the preliminary merits of the petition. It confirmed that the law “does not allow indefinite detention” and that once the allegedly reasonable six-month period has lapsed, the burden of proof shifts. The government must demonstrate that there exists a “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
The court explicitly identified the impediments making removal of the petitioner to the designated destinations unlikely:
- To Syria: The U.S. does not maintain diplomatic relations with Syria.
- To Venezuela: ICE has not taken any action to remove him to Venezuela.
- To Turkey or Jordan: Jalal Al Chair was not given the opportunity to express his fear of persecution regarding these countries.
The court determined:
| Directive | Description | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Response from defendants | Defendants must demonstrate why the petition should not be granted. The response must include documentary evidence and/or sworn statements. | October 15, 2025 |
| Petitioner’s Reply | The petitioner may submit a reply to the government’s response. | October 22, 2025 |
| Restraining Order Motion | The petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order was DENIED (STRICKEN) for failing to meet the local rules page limits. | N/A |
Furthermore, in addition to addressing the merits of the main claim, the court ordered the defendants to respond to two specific questions:
1. Right to a Hearing: If the petitioner were released based on his Zadvydas claim, would he have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge prior to any future detention?
2. Inclusion in Class Action: Is the petitioner a member of the class in the case D.V.D. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., and could his request for specific procedures before being removed to a third country be resolved in that litigation?
Due to an error in the citations, the court granted one more day—until October 16, 2025—to send corrected citations to Pamela Bondi, Fred Figueroa, Kristi Noem, and the United States Attorney’s Office.