Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
According to the first amended petition, Petitioner Alberto Mauri Rodriguez, a Cuban citizen who arrived in 2014, was convicted of several nonviolent controlled-substance offenses, the last in 2019. After an immigration judge ordered him removed to Cuba, ICE released him on an order of supervision in December 2019, and he alleges he complied for six years. On March 26, 2026, at his yearly check-in, he was detained and told he was going to Mexico. A revocation notice cited 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l). It stated that enforcing the removal order was appropriate because ICE had the ability and means to remove him, and that ICE was seeking a travel document for removal to Mexico. An officer held an informal interview the same day.
Petitioner says he is unwilling and afraid to go to Mexico, and ICE officers have intermittently asked him to go voluntarily. He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 13, 2026. After counsel was appointed, he filed a first amended petition. Respondents answered on September 25, 2026, and Petitioner replied on October 8. Count One alleges that re-detention without changed circumstances violates due process. Respondents acknowledged that detention was presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis when they responded, with the six-month mark falling on September 26, 2026. They argued he was not entitled to immediate release, that his refusal to cooperate with removal to Mexico extended the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C), and that removal remains foreseeable when non-cooperation is the only obstacle.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge treated the case as re-detention after release on supervision rather than initial post-removal detention. Zadvydas read 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) to limit post-removal detention to a period reasonably necessary to effect removal. The findings quote district authority that the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework does not apply to re-detention, yet conclude the outcome is the same even if it did. Under 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l), a person released on supervision may be re-detained only if, on account of changed circumstances, ICE determines there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Relying on decisions of this court, the findings place that burden on ICE and say the standard requires more than a mere possibility of removal.
The findings recommend rejecting Respondents' reliance on § 1231(a)(1)(C). Citing decisions from this district, they reason that a person has no obligation to cooperate with removal to a third country, so refusing consent to removal to Mexico does not extend the removal period.
On the merits, the findings note that Mexico accepts only individuals who consent to removal there. Petitioner refused consent multiple times, and the record contains no evidence that Mexico would accept him otherwise. The Court therefore recommends finding that ICE did not show changed circumstances making removal significantly likely. It also recommends finding that, even if the Zadvydas framework applied, Petitioner met his burden and Respondents failed to rebut it. It recommends granting the petition on Count One and immediate release under his most recent supervision conditions. It also recommends an injunction against re-detention under § 241.13(i)(2) unless material changed circumstances exist and a neutral decisionmaker finds a significant likelihood of removal. It did not address Petitioner's other claims.
Key Takeaways
- This is a magistrate judge's recommendation, not a final order, so release and the injunction take effect only if the assigned District Judge adopts it.
- Under the reasoning applied, ICE must show changed circumstances and a significant likelihood of removal to re-detain someone on supervision.
- Refusing consent to third-country removal was not treated as non-cooperation that extends the removal period.
- Because Mexico accepts only consenting individuals, removal there was not reasonably foreseeable on this record.
- Objections are due within 14 days, and Petitioner's remaining claims were left undecided.
Why It Matters
The findings add to a line of Eastern District of California decisions rejecting detention of people re-detained for removal to Mexico without their consent. They treat ICE's regulatory burden as central and do not separately analyze constitutional questions. The recommended relief is conditional and limited to this petitioner.
The weight of the document is limited. It is an unpublished recommendation, not binding precedent, and the assigned District Judge may adopt, reject or modify it after objections.