Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Livan Ramos, a Cuban citizen proceeding without a lawyer, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 21, 2026, challenging his immigration detention. According to the opinion, he had earlier been removed from the United States as inadmissible and re-entered without inspection at an unknown time and place. An immigration judge ordered him removed on July 1, 2003. He was not removed, and the petition alleges he was released on an Order of Supervision on October 17, 2003. On May 30, 2026, local authorities arrested him for a traffic violation, which revealed a deportation arrest warrant. An I-247 detainer was lodged and Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into custody.
Respondents filed a response on September 16, 2026, and a supplement on October 23, 2026, at the court's direction. Ramos's deadline to file a traverse had not passed, but the magistrate judge found it appropriate to issue findings and recommendations anyway. Ground Four of the petition asserted that ICE did not follow 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 when it revoked his supervision, including by giving no notice of reasons and no informal interview. Respondents stated there is no record of the order being formally revoked by ERO. They also stated that Cuba denied repatriation, that ERO offered Mexico as a third-country option which Ramos refused, and that ERO is searching for another option.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean recommends granting the petition on Ground Four. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l) govern revocation of release for a noncitizen with a final removal order and call for notice of the reasons and a prompt informal interview. The record contained nothing showing either was provided, so the court recommended finding Ramos entitled to relief. It relied on district court decisions treating a missing interview as enough on its own. It also noted that several district courts, including in this district, have rejected DHS's argument that the notice and interview requirements do not apply to revocations under § 241.4(l)(2).
The court also rejected Respondents' argument that Ramos must carry the burden under Zadvydas v. Davis. Following other district court decisions, it reasoned that the six-month presumption and burden-shifting framework do not govern ICE's authority to re-detain someone previously released on supervision. Under the regulations, ICE must show changed circumstances making removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents did not do so. They identified no third country willing to accept Ramos, and courts have found removal to Mexico not reasonably foreseeable when the person does not consent. A general assertion of ongoing efforts was not compelling. The court added that even if Zadvydas applied, Ramos met his burden and Respondents did not rebut it.
The recommended remedy is that Respondents be directed to release Ramos immediately under appropriate conditions. They would also be enjoined from re-detaining him under § 241.13(i)(2) unless there are material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker finds a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court described decisions requiring a pre-deprivation hearing but did not decide that question, and it declined to reach the petition's other claims. Separately, it denied Ramos's motion to appoint counsel in light of its recommendation. That denial is an order, but everything else is only a recommendation to District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff, with objections due within fourteen days.
Key Takeaways
- As recommended here, ICE must give notice of the reasons for revocation and a prompt informal interview when it revokes an order of supervision, and nothing in this record showed it did either.
- The court treated re-detention after release on supervision as governed by the revocation regulations, with ICE bearing the burden to show changed circumstances making removal significantly likely, rather than by the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework.
- A bare statement that ICE is searching for a third country, with no willing country identified, was not enough to carry that burden.
- Removal to Mexico was treated as not reasonably foreseeable where the detainee does not consent.
- Nothing is final yet. The release and anti-re-detention relief is only recommended and awaits objections and the district judge's review.
Why It Matters
The recommendation adds to a body of Eastern District of California decisions holding ICE to its own revocation regulations when it re-detains people who lived under supervision for years. It places the burden on the government to show changed circumstances and a realistic prospect of removal, which matters most for nationals of countries that refuse repatriation and for third-country removals lacking a willing destination.
Its weight is limited. It is an unpublished magistrate judge recommendation that the assigned district judge has not yet adopted, and it does not resolve the pre-deprivation hearing question or the petition's other claims. It turns on a record in which Respondents offered little detail about their efforts.