20 Months in ICE Detention: Nepali Man Finally Walks Free After Federal Judge Steps In For nearly 20 months, Nepali citizen Saugaat Shahi remained in U.S. immigration detention—caught in an extraordinary situation where America had ordered him removed but couldn't send him back to Nepal and couldn't find another country willing to take him. Then a federal judge intervened. Shahi entered the United States on November 29, 2024, and was detained shortly afterward. In September 2025, an immigration judge ordered him removed from the United States—but also granted him withholding of removal to Nepal, after finding that he faced a “clear probability of persecution” if returned there. That created an unusual dilemma. ICE couldn't deport Shahi to Nepal. So beginning in October 2025, immigration authorities tried to find a third country willing to accept him. Months passed. Shahi remained behind bars. By July 2026, ICE acknowledged in federal court that it still had not identified a third country willing to take him. Yet Shahi remained detained. In March, Shahi took matters into his own hands, initially filing a federal habeas corpus petition without an attorney and challenging his continued detention. He later obtained legal representation. The government argued that removal to another country remained possible and also raised concerns that Shahi was a flight risk. But U.S. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff concluded that, after more than nine months since Shahi's removal order became final, there was “no significant likelihood” that he would actually be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. On July 27, 2026, the judge issued a decisive order: Release Shahi immediately. The court went further. If the government eventually finds another country willing to accept Shahi, authorities generally must give him and his attorney at least 21 days' written notice and provide procedures allowing him to raise fears of persecution or torture in that country. After approximately 20 months in immigration custody, Shahi had won his freedom through federal court. His immigration case, however, is not the same as receiving permission to remain permanently in America. The removal order still exists—the court's ruling concerned his prolonged detention and protections surrounding any potential third-country removal. Source: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Shahi v. Noem et al., No. 1:26-cv-02169. q https://law.justia.com/cases/f...