Stanley Giovanni Contreras Blanco, Petitioner v. Merrick Garland,1 et al., Respondents2 DECISION & ORDER Stanley Giovanni Contreras Blanco has been detained in the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security since July 24, 2020 — just over a year. See Docket Item 1 at 19; Docket Item 3-1 at 20. On January 28, 2021, he filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241, challenging the validity of his detention at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (“BFDF”) in Batavia, New York. Docket Item 1. On March 29, 2021, the respondents answered the petition, Docket Item 3, and on April 7, 2021, Contreras Blanco replied, Docket Item 6. For the reasons that follow, this Court grants Contreras Blanco’s petition in part. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following facts, taken from the record, come largely from filings with the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Contreras Blanco is a native and citizen of El Salvador. See Docket Item 3-1 at 11. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on January 31, 2012. Id. at 6. On May 1, 2017, Contreras Blanco was convicted of attempted robbery in the first degree and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and three years’ post-release parole supervision. Id. at 7. On August 30, 2017, ICE determined that Contreras Blanco was “subject to removal due to his criminal conviction.” Id. at 8. So, on February 2, 2018, DHS issued a “Warrant for Arrest of Alien” and an immigration detainer, notifying Contreras Blanco that he would be detained pending removal proceedings. Id. at 9; Docket Item 3-2 at 17, 19. That same day, DHS issued a “Notice to Appear,” charging that Contreras Blanco was subject to removal from the United States under various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§1101-1537. Docket Item 3-2 at 22-24. More specifically, DHS charged that Contreras Blanco was subject to removal under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) because he had been convicted of “an aggravated felony constituting a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year[,]…an aggravated felony relating to a theft offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year[,]…[and] an aggravated felony relating to an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.” Docket Item 3-1 at 12; see also Docket Item 3-2 at 24. Likewise, DHS charged that he was subject to removal under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) for having been convicted of “a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after admission for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.” Docket Item 3-1 at 12; see also Docket Item 3-2 at 24. On February 28, 2019, an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Contreras Blanco removed from the United States. Docket Item 3-1 at 18; Docket Item 3-2 at 37. A few weeks later, Contreras Blanco appealed the IJ’s order of removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Docket Item 1 at 19, and on August 12, 2019, the BIA dismissed that appeal, Docket Item 3-2 at 51. About a month later, Contreras Blanco filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on July 24, 2020, he filed a motion to stay his removal. Docket Item 1 at 19; Contreras Blanco v. Barr, Case No. 19-2850 (2d Cir.). That petition and motion are pending. DISCUSSION I. HABEAS PETITION 28 U.S.C. §2241 “authorizes a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus whenever a petitioner is ‘in custody in violation of the laws or treaties of the United States.’” Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §2241(c)(3)). The government maintains that Contreras Blanco is validly detained under “8 U.S.C. §1231, as an alien with a final order of removal, or else as a criminal alien pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226(c).” Docket Item 3 at 1. Contreras Blanco disagrees on three grounds. First, he argues that his detention for more than six months pending removal proceedings violates the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Docket Item 1 at
