Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Onel Montes de Oca is a citizen of Cuba with a final order of removal entered in 2009 following a 2008 controlled substance conviction. He was previously detained and released on supervision because he could not be removed to Cuba. On May 3, 2026, he was re-detained while attempting to board a domestic flight at Palm Beach International Airport. Respondents stated their intention was to execute the 2009 removal order, but did not suggest Petitioner could be removed to Cuba; instead, they insisted he was failing to cooperate with his removal to Mexico.
On October 2, 2026, a magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant the petition and order Respondents to immediately release Petitioner. Respondents filed timely objections on October 16, 2026. The district court conducted a de novo review of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), reviewing the entire file including Respondents' objections.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis, adopting them in full. The court granted the first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and directed Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody under the conditions of his most recent order of supervision. The court held that Respondents had not met their burden to demonstrate removal was likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The court rejected Respondents' argument that Petitioner's non-consent to removal to Mexico constituted a failure to cooperate justifying continued detention. Citing Cruz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Det. Facility, the court noted that Mexico only accepts individuals who consent to be removed there, and to hold otherwise would make a mockery of the concept of consent. The court 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 a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The government bears the burden of proving removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future to justify continued post-removal detention under Zadvydas v. Davis.
- A detainee's refusal to consent to removal to a third country (Mexico) does not constitute a failure to cooperate that justifies indefinite detention when that country only accepts individuals who consent.
- Courts will enjoin re-detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) absent material changed circumstances and a neutral determination of likely removal.
- The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings in full after de novo review, granting immediate release under existing supervision terms.
- The case was closed following the grant of habeas relief.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the constitutional limits on post-removal detention established in Zadvydas v. Davis, particularly for nationals of countries that do not accept removals (like Cuba). The court's rejection of the government's "failure to cooperate" theory—where cooperation is defined as consenting to removal to a third country that requires consent—prevents the government from circumventing Zadvydas by pressuring detainees to accept third-country removal. The injunction against re-detention without material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker adds procedural protection for released detainees.
The order also illustrates the practical application of the Zadvydas framework in the Eastern District of California, where the court has repeatedly held that Mexico only accepts third-country removals with the individual's consent. By adopting the magistrate judge's findings in full and rejecting the government's characterization of non-consent as a failure to cooperate, the court ensures that the consent requirement retains meaningful force and that indefinite detention cannot be justified by demanding acquiescence to a removal destination the detainee has not agreed to accept.