Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Orlando Castillo Aleman, a citizen of Cuba, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued immigration detention at the California City Detention Center. On October 6, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (Doc. 13) concluding that the petition should be granted and Respondents directed to immediately release Petitioner. The district court served the findings and recommendations on the parties, notifying them that any objections were due within 14 days and warning that failure to object could waive the right to appeal. No objections were filed within the prescribed time period.
The magistrate judge's findings centered on two primary grounds: first, that Petitioner's detention had exceeded the six-month period authorized by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) in light of his pre-detention arrest for petit theft; and second, that Respondents had failed to demonstrate they were likely to remove Petitioner to Cuba or a third country in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents claimed to be pursuing third-country removal to Mexico but failed to explain how such removal could be effectuated without Petitioner's consent. The district court conducted a de novo review of the entire file pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full, granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court agreed that Petitioner's detention had exceeded the six-month statutory limit under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) and that Respondents failed to demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Court specifically rejected Respondents' assertion that they were pursuing third-country removal to Mexico, noting that they had failed to explain how such removal could occur without Petitioner's consent, and citing prior rulings in Cruz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Det. Facility to the effect that such assertions effectively amount to an admission that Respondents have no practical plans for removal.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner under appropriate conditions of supervision. The Court further enjoined and restrained Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) unless there are material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker determines that there is a significant likelihood of Petitioner's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Court declined to address the alternative ground for relief based on Respondents' failure to provide an informal interview. The Clerk of Court was directed to serve the California City Detention Center with a copy of the Order and to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted habeas relief to a Cuban national whose immigration detention exceeded the six-month regulatory limit under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1).
- Respondents' bare assertion of pursuing third-country removal to Mexico, without explaining how removal could be effectuated without the detainee's consent, was deemed insufficient to establish a reasonably foreseeable likelihood of removal.
- The Court enjoined re-detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) absent material changed circumstances and a neutral determination of a significant likelihood of removal.
- The Court adopted the magistrate judge's findings in full after de novo review, with no objections having been filed by either party within the 14-day period.
- The Court declined to reach the alternative ground for relief concerning the failure to provide an informal interview.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the requirement that the government must demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future to justify continued immigration detention beyond the initial six-month period under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1). The Court's rejection of the government's unsubstantiated claim of pursuing third-country removal to Mexico—without the detainee's consent—signals heightened scrutiny of such assertions, particularly where the government has a history of making similar claims without practical plans for effectuation. The injunction against re-detention absent material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker's determination provides a procedural safeguard against cyclical detention.
The ruling aligns with the Court's prior decision in Cruz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Det. Facility and contributes to a developing body of case law in the Eastern District of California limiting prolonged immigration detention where removal is not practically achievable. The decision also underscores the consequences of the government's failure to object to magistrate judge findings, resulting in adoption of those findings after de novo review.