¶1 Moustapha Sacko, an immigration detainee, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged his pre-removal detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He now appeals the district court’s holding he failed to demonstrate there was no reasonable likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future. According to Sacko, his continued detention beyond six months violates the rule from Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).
¶2 It appears the district court did not err in concluding Sacko hampered the Government’s efforts to remove him. We need not reach that issue, however. Instead, we note the district court ordered the Government to obtain travel documents from Burundi within six months. That period has now passed, rendering moot any dispute over the rationale for the district court’s order of continued detention. Therefore, we vacate and remand to the district court to determine whether, given the current status of the case, “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future”. Id. at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491; see also Gul v. Rozos, 163 Fed.Appx. 317 (5th Cir.2006).
¶3 VACATED AND REMANDED