Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Dilia Yaneth Navarrete-Navarrete, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States in 2018 with her two children. On October 27, 2022, she was ordered removed in absentia after her counsel failed to provide her notice of the hearing date. She remained at liberty until August 12, 2026, when ICE agents detained her at her home and transferred her to Otay Mesa Detention Center.
Petitioner filed a motion to reopen her immigration case on August 24, 2026, which was denied the same day; she then filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that remains pending. Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 11) challenging the legality of her continued detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Respondents filed a Return (ECF No. 13) and Petitioner filed a Traverse (ECF No. 14).
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It held that the six-month presumptively reasonable detention period under Zadvydas began on October 27, 2022—the date the removal order became administratively final—and expired on April 27, 2023, well before Petitioner’s re-detention in August 2026. The Court adopted the reasoning of its prior decision in Osson v. LaRose, No. 3:26-cv-4834-JES-JLB (S.D.
Cal. Oct. 9, 2026), rejecting Respondents’ implicit argument that the grace period restarted upon re-detention. With the grace period expired, Petitioner met her initial burden by showing no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, citing BIA appeal processing times averaging over 19 months and a clearance rate below 10 percent. Respondents conceded Petitioner cannot be removed until the BIA rules but offered only a bare assertion that removal would occur “as soon as practicable” without evidence to rebut the statistical showing. The Court ordered Petitioner’s immediate release subject to prior conditions of release and directed the parties to file a joint status report by October 20, 2026 confirming release.
Key Takeaways
- The Zadvydas six-month grace period runs from the date the removal order becomes administratively final, not from the date of physical detention or re-detention.
- A noncitizen detained years after a final removal order is not entitled to a new six-month presumption of reasonableness upon re-detention.
- Petitioner satisfies the initial Zadvydas burden by presenting statistical evidence of excessive BIA appeal delays (19+ month average, <10% clearance rate) combined with the government’s concession that removal cannot proceed until the appeal is decided.
- The government’s bare assertion that it will remove the noncitizen “as soon as practicable” after the BIA rules is insufficient to rebut a showing of no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- The Court ordered immediate release subject to prior conditions of release and required a joint status report confirming release within one week.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Zadvydas framework in the Ninth Circuit by clarifying that the six-month presumptively reasonable detention period is tethered to the finality of the removal order, not the timing of physical custody. It prevents the government from circumventing Zadvydas by delaying enforcement for years and then claiming a fresh grace period upon re-detention.
The ruling also underscores that statistical evidence of systemic BIA backlog, coupled with the government’s own concession that removal is stayed pending appeal, can satisfy a detainee’s initial burden and shift the burden to the government to produce concrete evidence of likely removal. The Court’s reliance on its recent Osson decision signals a developing line of authority in the Southern District of California on this issue.