Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Rongzhi Chi, a noncitizen, was granted withholding of removal to China by an immigration judge in August 2018. In March 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) re-detained him. Chi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his re-detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On April 30, 2026, the district court granted Chi’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered his immediate release, enjoining respondents from re-detaining him absent compliance with constitutional protections and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). The district court referred the matter to the magistrate judge for findings and recommendations on the merits. Respondents filed a return to the petition conceding that the case presented no factual or legal distinctions from prior district court decisions in Hoac v. Becerra, Vuong v. Becerra, and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, and acknowledged that ICE was awaiting identification of a third country for removal at the time of re-detention.
This document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final judgment. Objections were due within seven days of service.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the statutory and procedural due process claim (claim three). The court found that respondents failed to establish ‘changed circumstances such that there is now a significant likelihood’ that petitioner will be removed to China in the reasonably foreseeable future. Because the removal period has long expired, petitioner was granted withholding of removal to China in 2018, and the government had not identified a third country for removal over a month after re-detention, continued detention is unauthorized. The court relies on Zadvydas v. Davis and 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i), 241.4(l), as well as the reasoning in Hoac, Nguyen v. Hyde, and Nguyen v. Scott. Because granting claim three provides full relief, the court declines to reach claims one, two, four, and five. The court recommends a permanent injunction barring re-detention absent compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) and applicable procedures.
The decision turns on the specific record and procedural setting described above. Its operative effect is limited to the relief stated in the disposition; issues the court did not reach remain open on remand or before the assigned district judge, as applicable.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen granted withholding of removal cannot be indefinitely re-detained absent a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- The government’s failure to identify a third country for removal, combined with the expiration of the removal period and an existing withholding order, renders continued detention unlawful under Zadvydas and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
- Respondents’ concession that the case is substantively identical to prior precedent (Hoac, Vuong, El-Ghazaly) foreclosed opposition to the habeas petition.
- The magistrate judge recommends a permanent injunction requiring strict compliance with regulatory revocation procedures before any future re-detention.
- The court exercised judicial economy by resolving the petition on the statutory/procedural due process claim without reaching constitutional or APA claims.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle established in Zadvydas v. Davis that immigration detention must be tethered to a realistic prospect of removal. It applies the Eastern District of California’s emerging line of cases (Hoac, Vuong, El-Ghazaly) holding that re-detention of noncitizens with final withholding of removal orders is unlawful when removal to the country of withholding is barred and no third country has been identified. The recommended permanent injunction requiring compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) imposes a procedural safeguard against arbitrary re-detention. The ruling highlights the government’s burden to demonstrate changed circumstances justifying detention after the removal period expires.
For California practitioners, the practical lesson is to match the requested remedy to the governing procedural vehicle and to preserve a record addressing the court’s stated legal test. The ruling should not be read more broadly than its posture permits.