Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adriano Anoceto-Gonzalez, a Cuban national, entered the United States near the Del Rio Port of Entry on May 12, 2021, and was arrested by Border Patrol. A June 2021 Notice to Appear charged him as inadmissible for lacking a valid entry document and for being present without admission or parole. The notice reflects that an asylum officer found a credible fear of persecution or torture, and he was later released, though the record does not say how. On August 12, 2025, an immigration judge ordered him removed to Cuba in absentia after he missed a hearing.
Officials re-arrested him on or about June 14, 2026; the record does not state the basis or manner of the arrest. He has been moved among five facilities and is held at the Central Valley Annex in the Eastern District of California. He filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition on September 4, 2026, challenging an alleged plan to remove him to Mexico. After counsel was appointed, the amended petition argued under Zadvydas v. Davis that removal to Cuba is not reasonably foreseeable and that he cannot be detained to coerce consent to removal to Mexico. Respondent argued he is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2) or, alternatively, to post-removal detention under 1231(a)(6), and that detention may continue because he is unlikely to comply with the removal order.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge treated the case as governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6). Because the removal order was entered in absentia, the 90-day removal period began on the date of the order, August 12, 2025, and had long expired by the June 2026 re-arrest. The findings do not separately analyze Respondent's 1225(b)(2) theory. Applying Zadvydas, they reason that detention is authorized only while removal remains reasonably foreseeable, and that the six-month period is a presumption, not a bar to earlier challenges, even though Petitioner's post-removal detention had not reached six months.
The findings conclude that Petitioner gave good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondent did not dispute his assertion that Cuba has historically refused to accept deportees, and the findings cite other district courts describing Cuba as a country that generally does not issue travel documents. Petitioner also alleges that DHS is trying to send him to Mexico, which he says accepts Cubans only with consent he will not give; Respondent filed no notice of removal to Mexico. The burden therefore shifted to Respondent, who made no attempt to rebut the showing about Cuba. The findings reject the argument that refusing a third-country removal not ordered by an immigration judge is noncooperation under 1231(a)(1)(C), citing decisions that call the argument frivolous or an improper use of detention to coerce consent.
The recommended disposition is to grant the petition on Count One; order immediate release under supervision conditions set by statute and regulation; direct the Clerk to serve the facility with any final release order; bar re-detention unless Respondent complies with 8 C.F.R. 241.13(i) and other applicable law; and enter judgment and close the case. Petitioner's other claim was not addressed.
Key Takeaways
- A Zadvydas challenge may be raised before the six-month presumptively reasonable period ends, because that period is a presumption rather than a bar.
- Here, an unrebutted showing that Cuba generally does not accept deportees satisfied the petitioner's initial burden and shifted the burden to the government.
- The findings reject using detention under 1231(a)(6) to pressure a detainee to consent to removal to a third country not named in the removal order.
- These are recommendations only; the district judge has not yet ruled, and objections were due within three days of service.
- The recommended release is supervised, and re-detention would require compliance with 8 C.F.R. 241.13(i).
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's unpublished set of findings and recommendations, not a final judgment, and it carries no precedential weight. It takes effect only if the assigned district judge adopts it. It shows how judges in the Eastern District of California are applying Zadvydas to Cuban nationals facing possible removal to Mexico, relying largely on other district court decisions.
Open issues include whether objections are filed, whether the district judge adopts the recommendations, Petitioner's unaddressed second claim, and how he was released and later re-arrested. The recommendation rests on a record the government did not rebut, so a different evidentiary showing could produce a different result.