Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner is a Cuban citizen who was paroled into the United States in 2006 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Cuba in November 2017, and he was released on an order of supervision. In September 2025, after immigration authorities encountered him in Florida state custody following a criminal conviction, ICE revoked his supervision and detained him.
ICE repeatedly notified Petitioner that it intended to remove him to Mexico, and he refused to sign each notice. He received a Warning for Failure to Depart in February 2026, and ICE served notices of failure to comply under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(g) in June and July 2026. ICE decided to continue his detention in June 2026. Two earlier habeas petitions in the Middle District of Florida were denied without prejudice to refiling. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 28, 2026, and Respondent answered on October 21, 2026. The magistrate judge issued findings before the reply period had expired.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends that the district judge grant the petition on Grounds One and Four. First, 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) allows a person who violated release conditions to be continued in detention for an additional six months to effect removal. Petitioner has been detained longer than that. Following decisions from this District, the court recommends finding that his continued detention is no longer authorized by the regulation, and that his criminal history does not automatically justify it.
Second, the court recommends rejecting the government's argument that the removal period was extended under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) because Petitioner would not cooperate with removal to Mexico. Relying on decisions of this District, it reasoned that a person has no obligation to cooperate with removal to a third country. The removal order here designated Cuba, not Mexico.
Third, the court treated the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework as inapplicable to re-detention after release on supervision. Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), ICE must show changed circumstances making removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Mexico accepts third-country removals only of people who consent, and Petitioner refused consent multiple times. The record contained no evidence that Mexico would accept him without consent. Even assuming Zadvydas applied, the court found that Petitioner showed good reason to believe removal was unlikely and that Respondents did not rebut that showing. The court did not reach the third-country removal claims, noting that nothing in the record suggested removal anywhere other than Mexico was contemplated.
Key Takeaways
- The court recommends reading 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) as authorizing only an additional six months of detention after a violation of release conditions, so criminal history alone does not justify longer detention.
- The court recommends that a person ordered removed to one country has no duty to cooperate with removal to a third country, so refusing to do so does not extend the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C).
- When ICE re-detains someone released on an order of supervision, the recommendation places on ICE the burden of showing changed circumstances and a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Because Mexico accepts third-country removals only with consent, the court found removal not reasonably foreseeable where the detainee has repeatedly refused consent.
- This is only a recommendation: the district judge has not yet ruled, objections are due within fourteen days of service, and the proposed release and re-detention restriction do not take effect unless adopted.
Why It Matters
The recommendation adds to a growing line of Eastern District of California decisions that apply the regulatory limits on re-detention after supervised release and decline to treat refusal of third-country removal as a basis for extended detention. It rests largely on persuasive district court authority and the court's own reasoning, and it does not create binding precedent.
Its practical effect depends on the district judge. If adopted, Petitioner would be released on appropriate supervision conditions. Respondents could be barred from re-detaining him unless materially changed circumstances arise and a neutral decisionmaker finds a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The third-country removal claims remain unaddressed, and a party's failure to object in time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.