Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner William Morgado, a citizen of Cuba, was ordered removed to Cuba on July 31, 2018, and subsequently released on an order of supervision (OSUP). In March 2026, he pleaded guilty to eleven felony charges involving motor vehicle theft and burglary, receiving a 1,025-day sentence with credit for time served. On or about March 19, 2026, ICE took him into custody for violating his OSUP conditions, which was revoked based on his convictions. Since then, DHS has informed Morgado on three separate occasions of its intent to remove him to Mexico if he voluntarily cooperates; he has refused consent each time. Morgado filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 24, 2026, challenging his prolonged detention. Respondents filed a response on September 16, 2026, and Morgado filed a traverse on October 2, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordering Morgado's immediate release subject to appropriate conditions. The court concludes that the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework does not apply because this case concerns ICE's authority to re-detain a noncitizen after the 90-day removal period expired and the noncitizen was previously released on supervision, not initial post-removal detention. Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1), continued detention for violating an OSUP is authorized only for an additional six months; Morgado has been detained beyond that period. Further, under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), ICE bears the burden to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future based on changed circumstances. Because Mexico only accepts noncitizens who consent to removal and Morgado has repeatedly refused, removal is not significantly likely. Even under Zadvydas, Morgado has shown good reason to believe removal is unlikely, and Respondents have failed to rebut that showing. The court enjoins Respondents from re-detaining Morgado under § 241.13(i)(2) absent material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker's determination of a significant likelihood of removal.
The document is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not an immediately effective release order. Objections were due within 14 days after service, were limited to 15 pages including exhibits, and replies were due 14 days after service of objections. That posture matters when assessing whether the proposed injunction is operative.
Key Takeaways
- Zadvydas burden-shifting does not govern re-detention after expiration of the removal period and prior release on supervision; instead, 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) controls.
- Detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) for violating an order of supervision is limited to six months; detention beyond that period is unauthorized.
- Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), ICE must demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future to justify re-detention; mere possibility is insufficient.
- Mexico's acceptance of third-country removals requires the noncitizen's consent; without consent, removal is not significantly likely.
- The court recommends immediate release with conditions and an injunction against future re-detention absent new material circumstances and a neutral determination of removal likelihood.
Why It Matters
This Findings and Recommendation reinforces a growing line of decisions in the Eastern District of California holding that prolonged immigration detention after revocation of supervision is governed by the specific regulatory framework of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), not the Zadvydas post-removal-period statute. It clarifies that the six-month limit in § 241.13(i)(1) is a hard cap on detention for supervision violations, and that the government bears the burden under § 241.13(i)(2) to prove a significant likelihood of removal— a standard not met when the designated country (Mexico) requires consent that the detainee has refused. The ruling underscores that criminal history alone does not justify indefinite detention when removal is not foreseeable, and it imposes procedural safeguards for any future re-detention.