Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Gustavo Cabrera Miranda, a native of Cuba proceeding pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, was ordered removed to Cuba on June 20, 2006, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal on November 8, 2007. ICE encountered him at Naples Jail Center on June 10, 2026, following an arrest for possession of drug equipment, and took custody on June 12 after his release from state custody. A footnote states that he had never been released on an order of supervision and had no reporting requirements when the removal order issued.
Cuba denied repatriation on August 18, 2026. Cabrera Miranda signed a third-country removal notice to Mexico on July 20, but Mexican authorities refused him on July 31 for medical reasons. He subsequently refused on August 10, September 1, and October 5 to sign paperwork initiating third-country removal to Mexico, while Enforcement and Removal Operations explored other third-country options. He filed his petition on September 17; respondents answered on October 13 and supplemented their response on October 29. The magistrate judge issued findings and a recommendation before the traverse deadline expired.
The Court’s Holding
The recommendation first rejected respondents' contention that Cabrera Miranda's refusal to cooperate extended the removal period and made detention mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2). It instead concluded that he was subject to discretionary post-removal-period detention under § 1231(a)(6). The magistrate judge relied on district decisions characterizing the government's extended-removal-period theory as frivolous and warning that using detention to strong-arm third-country removal would undermine Mexico's consent requirement and sanction coercive detention.
On Ground One, the recommendation applied Zadvydas v. Davis's rule that § 1231(a)(6) does not authorize indefinite detention or detention beyond the period reasonably necessary to accomplish removal. Although Cabrera Miranda had not yet been detained for six months, the magistrate judge explained that the six-month period is a rebuttable presumption, not a prohibition on earlier challenges. Cuba's refusal, his repeated withholding of consent to Mexico, and the absence of evidence that any country would accept him established that removal was not reasonably foreseeable. General assertions that ICE was exploring alternatives or making efforts did not satisfy respondents' burden, and possible fear-based proceedings and appeals made any third-country removal still more remote.
The magistrate judge therefore found continued detention unreasonable and no longer statutorily authorized, recommending release under appropriate supervision conditions. The recommendation acknowledged his lengthy criminal history but concluded that supervision conditions could address those concerns. It recommended granting Ground One, denying immediate review, directing immediate release under 8 C.F.R. § 241.5, and barring re-detention absent materially changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker's finding of a significant likelihood of reasonably foreseeable removal. It declined to reach the other claims and separately denied appointment of counsel because habeas relief was recommended. The assigned district judge retains review; objections were due within fourteen days, with replies fourteen days after service of objections.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation treats Zadvydas's six-month period as a rebuttable presumption rather than a minimum detention period that forecloses an earlier habeas challenge.
- A receiving country's affirmative assent remains necessary for third-country removal, and unexplained government efforts to identify alternatives do not establish that removal is reasonably foreseeable.
- The magistrate judge rejected the argument that refusal to sign Mexican removal paperwork extended mandatory detention under § 1231(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2), placing the detention instead under discretionary § 1231(a)(6).
- The proposed disposition is immediate release with supervision conditions, not unconditional release, and the proposed injunction permits re-detention only upon materially changed circumstances and a neutral foreseeability determination.
- The document is a findings and recommendation subject to district-judge review, while the denial of appointed counsel is an order; the remaining claims were not decided.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies Zadvydas before six months of detention where both the designated country and the proposed third-country route presented concrete obstacles. Its analysis distinguishes a detainee's noncooperation from evidence that removal can actually occur: Cuba had refused repatriation, Mexico had refused him once and its standing arrangement was described as consent-dependent, and respondents supplied no acceptance by another country or details about further steps.
The proposed supervision and re-detention terms also show how the recommendation addresses public-safety and future-removal concerns without continuing detention indefinitely. Because these are recommendations rather than the assigned district judge's final disposition, the immediate-release directive and injunction remain proposed relief pending the objection and review process. The counsel ruling, by contrast, expressly denies that motion in light of the recommended habeas relief.