Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Frank Luis Louio-Capo, a native of Cuba, was ordered removed in absentia on May 5, 2016, after failing to attend his removal hearing. His motion to reopen was denied on August 18, 2016, and the removal order became administratively final. Despite the final order, Louio-Capo remained in the United States for ten years, accumulating criminal convictions including armed burglary, dealing in stolen property, grand theft, and criminal mischief. On or around March 11, 2026, ICE took him into custody following an arrest for grand theft and a probation violation. He has been detained at the California City Immigration Processing Center for over six months pending removal to Cuba. Louio-Capo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing his detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged because Cuba will not accept his repatriation and there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents opposed, contending detention remains lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), but offered no evidence regarding the likelihood of removal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Louio-Capo's detention has become impermissibly prolonged under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The Court found that Louio-Capo's detention surpassed the presumptively reasonable six-month period. He made a sufficient showing—by virtue of the ten-year failure to remove him, the lack of evidence that Respondents were unaware of his presence, and his assertion that Cuba will not repatriate him—that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents failed to rebut this showing with any evidence. The Court ordered Louio-Capo's release on appropriate conditions of supervision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.5. The order is stayed for 14 days to allow Respondents to explore transferring him to local law enforcement custody, as he was transferred to ICE after an arrest on state charges.
Key Takeaways
- Post-removal-period detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) is permissible but not required; after six months it becomes presumptively unreasonable.
- Once a detainee shows no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the burden shifts to the government to rebut with evidence.
- A decade-long failure to execute a removal order, combined with the detainee's assertion that the destination country (Cuba) will not accept repatriation, can satisfy the detainee's initial burden even with minimal evidence.
- The government's bare legal assertion that detention is authorized, without evidentiary rebuttal of the likelihood of removal, is insufficient to justify continued detention.
- Courts must liberally construe pro se petitioners' arguments in habeas proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Zadvydas framework to a Cuban national detained over six months post-final-order, reinforcing that the government bears the burden of proving removal is likely once the presumptively reasonable period expires. It highlights the practical consequence of Cuba's historical refusal to accept repatriation of its nationals, which renders prolonged detention unconstitutional absent a realistic prospect of removal. The 14-day stay to explore transfer to local law enforcement reflects the court's effort to balance the statutory mandate for release with public safety concerns arising from the petitioner's criminal history and pending state charges.
For practitioners, the order underscores the importance of matching the requested remedy and the governing standard to the case’s exact procedural posture. The result turns on the record described by the court and should not be read beyond the issues actually decided. Counsel should preserve alternative grounds, identify any unresolved questions, and document the facts needed under the applicable burden of proof.