Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jorge Hinz-Ferran, a Cuban citizen, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2010. After felony convictions in 2012, he was found removable and ordered removed to Cuba in 2013. The Department of Homeland Security could not carry out that removal, so immigration authorities released him on an order of supervision requiring him to report to ICE when directed and obey federal, state, and local laws, among other conditions. He then lived with his family in Florida; the petition stated that he was married to a U.S. citizen, had two young U.S.-citizen children, had owned a business since 2016, and had complied with all supervision conditions. Respondents submitted no evidence contradicting his compliance assertion.
In November 2025, Hinz-Ferran attended a regularly scheduled ICE check-in and was arrested. Four months later, ICE served a Notice of Revocation of Release asserting that he had violated a release condition and that changed circumstances created a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The notice did not identify the condition allegedly violated or describe the changed circumstances. He filed this habeas action in the Eastern District of California under Case No. 1:26-cv-04992-NW, challenging detention that had lasted more than eleven months by the time of the order.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Noël Wise granted the petition. The court explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 authorizes mandatory detention during the 90-day removal period and supervised release when removal cannot be accomplished, while Zadvydas v. Davis bars continued detention after six months when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), ICE may revoke supervision for a violation or qualifying changed circumstances, but must notify the noncitizen of the reasons, promptly provide an informal interview and an opportunity to submit evidence, and evaluate contested facts. When revocation rests on a condition violation, the regulation permits only an additional six months of detention to effect removal, if possible, and the release conditions. Agencies must follow their own regulations, and noncompliance with procedures protecting the opportunity to be heard invalidates the challenged action.
The court identified several violations: ICE waited four months after arrest to serve the revocation notice and provide an informal interview; the record contained no evidence supporting either an asserted supervision violation or foreseeable removal; and ICE had made no attempt to remove Hinz-Ferran to Cuba during more than eleven months of detention. Even assuming a supervision violation, detention had exceeded the regulation's additional six-month limit. The court concluded that these repeated failures to follow ICE's own revocation regulations violated Hinz-Ferran's constitutional right to due process.
The court also rejected Respondents' argument that detention remained lawful under § 1231(a)(2) and (6) because Hinz-Ferran might be removed to Mexico if he consented. He had been detained eleven months and had not consented, making foreseeable removal unlikely. The court stated that no part of § 1231(a) authorizes continued detention for third-country removal without a legal basis for that removal, and that indefinite detention until consent would use custody to coerce otherwise unavailable deportations. It ordered release on the same conditions as the prior order of supervision, enjoined and restrained Respondents from re-arresting or re-detaining him absent compliance with constitutional protections including, at a minimum, strict compliance with § 241.13(i), directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and enter judgment for Petitioner, and resolved all pending motions.
Key Takeaways
- ICE must provide the notice, prompt informal interview, opportunity to respond, and contested-fact review required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) when revoking an immigration order of supervision.
- A revocation notice that does not identify the violated condition or changed circumstances, coupled with an evidentiary record supporting neither basis, cannot sustain the detention challenged here.
- Even a valid revocation for violating supervision conditions would not justify detention beyond the regulation's additional six-month period in the circumstances addressed by the court.
- A noncitizen's refusal to consent to removal to Mexico did not supply a basis for indefinite detention where the Government offered no legal basis for third-country removal and no sufficient evidence of reasonably foreseeable removal.
- The order directed release on the same conditions as the prior order of supervision and prohibited renewed arrest or detention without constitutional protections and strict compliance with the governing revocation regulation.
Why It Matters
The decision applies both procedural due-process principles and Zadvydas's limits on post-removal-order detention to a single custody challenge. It treats ICE's delayed and unexplained revocation process, unsupported assertions, and overlong detention as independent problems, rather than excusing them through a general assertion that removal might eventually occur.
The order also addresses the Government's proposed third-country rationale directly: consent-based removal to Mexico could not justify holding Hinz-Ferran indefinitely. Its relief is specific and forward-looking, permitting supervision under the earlier conditions while requiring strict regulatory and constitutional compliance before any re-arrest or re-detention.