Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Breslel Ramos, a Cuban citizen who entered the United States around 1980, was convicted in 1992 of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two assault offenses. An immigration judge ordered him removed in 1996, but he was not removed and was released on an Order of Supervision, most recently around November 2020. Officers detained him on July 13, 2025 for trespassing and attempted car theft, and he was transferred to ICE custody. Respondents assert that ICE has notified him since August 2025 that it seeks to remove him to Mexico and that he has not agreed. The opinion notes that the exhibit cited for those assertions was not attached to the response.
Ramos, proceeding pro se, petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 24, 2026 and moved for appointed counsel. The opinion lays out the statutory framework: the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), the circumstances allowing extended detention, and Zadvydas v. Davis, which reads § 1231(a)(6) to limit detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about removal, with six months presumptively reasonable. Respondents argued that Ramos bears the Zadvydas burden and cannot meet it because his own lack of cooperation blocks removal, and they noted that his supervision conditions barred new crimes. The magistrate judge ruled before the reply deadline.
The Court’s Holding
This is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not a final judgment. The magistrate judge recommends finding that Ramos's detention is no longer authorized by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1), which permits holding a person who violates supervision conditions for an additional six months. Relying on Tran, Banos-Jiron and Pedro V.L., the opinion reads that language as a six-month cap and notes that Ramos has been held about fifteen months, so his criminal history does not automatically justify present detention.
The opinion rejects Respondents' burden argument. It reasons that the Zadvydas presumption and burden shifting do not govern re-detention of someone previously released on supervision, where ICE must show a significant likelihood of removal. Courts have found removal under the standing agreement with Mexico not reasonably foreseeable absent consent, and Ramos appears to have refused consent several times. The magistrate judge recommends finding that Respondents failed to carry their burden, and that even under Zadvydas Ramos showed good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely and Respondents did not rebut it.
The recommended relief is a grant of the petition, immediate release under appropriate conditions, and an injunction against re-detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) unless material circumstances change and a neutral decisionmaker finds a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The opinion also surveys decisions requiring pre-deprivation hearings for people re-detained after years on supervision, but it does not separately rule on that claim. The magistrate judge denied the motion for appointed counsel in light of the recommended relief.
Key Takeaways
- Under the recommended reading of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1), detention after a supervision violation is limited to an additional six months, and a criminal history does not by itself extend that period.
- When ICE re-detains someone previously released on supervision, the opinion places on the government the burden of showing a significant likelihood of removal, rather than shifting the Zadvydas burden to the detainee.
- A detainee's repeated refusal to consent to removal to Mexico undermines the claim that removal under the standing agreement is reasonably foreseeable.
- Because this is a findings and recommendation, release is not yet ordered; the district judge must review it after the 14-day objection period, and failure to object may waive appellate rights.
- The denial of appointed counsel is the only part issued as an order, and it rests on the recommended grant of relief.
Why It Matters
The opinion adds to a line of Eastern District of California rulings that treat the six-month limit in § 241.13(i)(1) as binding and refuse to let prolonged detention rest on criminal history or alleged non-cooperation. It also applies the view that Zadvydas burden shifting does not fit re-detention after release on supervision, which matters for detainees whom ICE seeks to remove to a country other than their own.
Its weight is limited. It is a magistrate judge's recommendation that binds no one until the district judge adopts it, it relies on Respondents' assertions that were not fully supported by an attached exhibit, and it leaves open whether Ramos was constitutionally entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing. The district judge may accept, reject or modify the recommendation after objections.