Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nelson Izquierdo Mata, a citizen of Cuba, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. He was ordered removed to Cuba on March 20, 1996, but was released from immigration custody on an order of supervision on a date prior because he could not be removed to Cuba. He was re-detained on March 28, 2026. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 6, 2026, the assigned Magistrate Judge ordered Respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Respondent responded on October 13, 2026, arguing that Petitioner is detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) because he is unlikely to comply with removal and has refused to cooperate. Respondent said ICE has been attempting to remove Petitioner to Mexico, but that Petitioner has not cooperated. Critically, no evidence was presented that Petitioner has been ordered removed to Mexico; Mexico has refused to accept his return, and no evidence exists that Mexico is listed in Petitioner's removal order.
Petitioner also moved for appointment of counsel on October 5, 2026. Respondent separately requested a stay pending DHS v. DVD, a Supreme Court case concerning third-country removals.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge does not find that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel at the present time because the petition is being recommended for grant on the papers. The judge also recommends declining Respondent's stay request, finding that Respondent has not met its burden to establish the need for a stay. The judge notes that DHS v. DVD has not been argued, that a stay of several more months would prolong revocation of Petitioner's liberty, and that the issue in DHS v. DVD would not affect this case because removal to Mexico requires Petitioner's voluntary consent, which was not at issue there.
On the merits, the magistrate judge adopts reasoning from recent Eastern District of California decisions, including Obando Vargas v. Blanche, and concludes that Respondent has not shown changed circumstances demonstrating a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future as required to justify revocation of release and continued detention. Petitioner has no removal order to Mexico, and Respondent's theory that he may be detained indefinitely for refusing to consent to a country he is not from is without merit; Respondent concedes consent is needed for removal to Mexico.
The judge further explains that criminal history does not alter the Zadvydas analysis under Johnson v. Guzman Chavez and controlling Ninth Circuit authority. Respondent does not rely on 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1), and even if it did, Petitioner has been detained for over six months. The recommendation is to grant the petition, recommend immediate release on the conditions, if any, Petitioner was subject to before detention on March 28, 2026, and recommend that Respondent be enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing Petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge.
Key Takeaways
- The government cannot indefinitely detain an immigration detainee for refusing to consent to removal to a third country to which he has not been ordered removed.
- A stay pending a Supreme Court decision is not warranted when that issue would not control the case and the stay would prolong the petitioner's detention.
- Criminal history is not relevant to the Zadvydas inquiry into whether removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- The magistrate judge recommends immediate release on the conditions, if any, Petitioner was subject to before March 28, 2026, and an injunction against re-detaining Petitioner for any purpose without notice and a pre-detention hearing, absent exigent circumstances.
- Parties have seven days to object to the findings and recommendations, and failure to object may waive appellate rights; the recommendation is not immediately appealable.
Why It Matters
The recommendation reinforces limits on indefinite immigration detention when removal to the designated country is not possible and the government instead seeks removal to a third country without the detainee's consent. It ties continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 to a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Procedurally, the document shows a magistrate judge issuing findings and recommendations rather than a final judgment, with an expedited seven-day objection period reflecting the liberty interests at stake in immigration detention cases.