"[T]he Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have both found that the presumptively reasonable six-month removal period includes the statutory 90-day removal period." Galtogbah v. Sessions, 6:18-CV-00880, 2019 WL 3766280, at *1 (W.D. La. June 18, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 6:18-CV-00880, 2019 WL 3761637 (W.D. La. Aug. 8, 2019). The Fifth Circuit has also clarified that Zadvydas "creates no specific limits on detention," that six months of detention does not warrant automatic release, and that "[t]he alien bears the initial burden of proof in showing that no . . . likelihood of removal exists."
Id. “In order to shift the burden to the Government, an alien must demonstrate that the circumstances of his status or the existence of the particular individual barriers to his repatriation to his country of origin are such that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.” Galtogbah v. Sessions, 2019 WL 3766280, at *2 (W.D. La. 2019) (quoting Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted)).
Id. “In order to shift the burden to the Government, an alien must demonstrate that the circumstances of his status or the existence of the particular individual barriers to his repatriation to his country of origin are such that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.” Galtogbah v. Sessions, 2019 WL 3766280, at *2 (W.D. La. 2019) (quoting Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted)).
To meet his burden, "the alien's claim must be supported by more than mere speculation and conjecture." Galtogbah v. Sessions, 2019 WL 3766280, at *2 (W.D. La. 2019) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Conclusory statements are not enough to demonstrate that the alien will not be removed in the foreseeable future.
Magistrate Judge Parker finds that Petitioner's Writ for Habeas Corpus should be dismissed with prejudice because the Petitioner has been unable to prove that deportation would be unlikely in the foreseeable future and because the Petitioner failed to fully cooperate with his removal process. See Galtogbah v. Sessions, 2019 WL 3766280, at *2 (W.D. La. 2019); see also Lusanga v. Ramos, 2019 WL 2851759, at *2 (W.D. La. 2019). Accordingly,