Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Livan Ramos, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. He raises four claims: (1) his detention violates due process and Zadvydas v. Davis because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future; (2) the government's third-country removal policy violates due process, the INA, the Convention Against Torture, and implementing regulations; (3) the third-country policy violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments; and (4) his re-detention after release on an order of supervision violates the Fifth Amendment, 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, and the APA. Respondents filed a response on September 16, 2026, arguing that Ramos's detention since May 30, 2026—beyond the 90-day removal period but within the six-month presumptively reasonable period recognized in Zadvydas—is reasonable given the significant likelihood of removal. Respondents did not address Ramos's claims concerning the revocation of his release on supervision.
The Court’s Holding
The court orders supplemental briefing on two issues: (1) whether ICE complied with applicable regulations—specifically 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l)—when revoking Petitioner's order of supervision, including notice and a prompt informal interview; and (2) whether Respondents can show a significant likelihood that Petitioner may be removed. The court cites Yan-Ling X. v. Lyons, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2025), for the proposition that the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework does not apply to challenges to ICE's authority to re-detain after release on an order of supervision, and that the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l) govern, placing the burden on ICE to show a significant likelihood of removal when revoking release to effectuate removal. Respondents must file a supplemental brief and supporting documentation within 14 days; Petitioner may file a traverse within 14 days thereafter.
Key Takeaways
- The court distinguishes between Zadvydas prolonged-detention claims and challenges to re-detention after release on an order of supervision, holding that the latter are governed by specific regulatory procedures at 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l).
- Under Yan-Ling X., when ICE revokes release to effectuate removal, ICE bears the burden of showing a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed.
- The court found Respondents' initial response insufficient because it did not address Petitioner's regulatory claims concerning the revocation of his order of supervision.
- The six-month presumptively reasonable detention period from Zadvydas does not control the analysis for re-detention challenges.
- The case remains pending; no final disposition on the merits has been entered.
Why It Matters
This order clarifies the procedural framework for habeas challenges to re-detention after release on an order of supervision in the Eastern District of California. By adopting the reasoning of Yan-Ling X. v. Lyons, the court signals that regulatory compliance—not merely the Zadvydas reasonableness inquiry—is the proper lens for evaluating ICE's revocation of supervision orders. The order places the burden on the government to demonstrate both regulatory compliance (notice, informal interview) and a significant likelihood of removal, potentially strengthening protections for noncitizens subject to re-detention. The case will proceed to full briefing on these issues, with a traverse opportunity for the pro se petitioner.
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.