Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Victor Estrada-Cruz, a 44-year-old native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 1999 and has lived here continuously. He is transgender and was sexually abused in Mexico. He has an extensive criminal history from 2003 to 2016, primarily drug-related offenses. An immigration court granted him withholding of removal either in 2004 or 2007, and he received work authorization. In 2016, removal proceedings were reopened based on a 2015 drug-trafficking conviction, and an immigration judge ordered his removal on May 9, 2017. ICE detained him upon his release from Orange County jail in September 2025, and he has been held at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center since then without any removal proceedings. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 30, 2026, arguing his detention violates the INA under Zadvydas v. Davis and his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Respondents filed an answer opposing release based on his criminal history but did not address his legal claims.
The court first confirmed it had jurisdiction under § 2241(c)(3) because the petition challenges the legality of detention, not the decision to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. Citing Jennings v. Rodriguez and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(g) do not strip jurisdiction over detention challenges independent of the removal process. The court then turned to the merits under Zadvydas, which limits post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to effect removal and establishes a six-month presumptive reasonableness period. After six months, once the alien provides good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the burden shifts to the government to rebut that showing.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that petitioner's post-removal detention has exceeded six months — he has been detained for over a year since September 2025 — satisfying the first Zadvydas prong. Petitioner also provided good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future because a prior withholding of removal order appears to prohibit his removal to Mexico. Respondents did not address petitioner's claims and offered no evidence to rebut this showing. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and issued a writ of habeas corpus requiring petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody. The court did not reach the Fifth Amendment due process claim because relief was warranted on the statutory Zadvydas claim. The order directs respondents to immediately release petitioner (A# 078-019-532) and file a status report by November 6, 2026 confirming his release.
Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym signed the memorandum opinion and order on November 3, 2026. The decision rests on the undisputed length of detention and the government's failure to rebut the petitioner's showing that removal is not significantly likely in the foreseeable future due to the existing withholding of removal order. The court's jurisdictional analysis confirms that habeas challenges to the legality of immigration detention remain available in district court despite statutory channeling provisions.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained for over a year after a final removal order is entitled to release under Zadvydas when a prior withholding of removal order makes removal unlikely and the government fails to rebut the showing.
- District courts retain habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review the legality of immigration detention even when statutory provisions channel other immigration claims to the courts of appeals.
- The six-month presumptive reasonableness period under Zadvydas triggers a burden shift: once the detainee shows no significant likelihood of removal, the government must produce evidence to justify continued detention.
- The government's failure to address the petitioner's legal arguments or offer any evidence of likely removal is fatal to its opposition to a habeas petition.
- A magistrate judge may enter a final order granting habeas relief and directing immediate release in a § 2241 proceeding.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Zadvydas framework in the Central District of California, confirming that prolonged immigration detention becomes unlawful when removal is not significantly likely in the foreseeable future and the government fails to carry its burden of justification. The ruling also reaffirms that § 2241 habeas jurisdiction survives the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions for claims challenging the legality of detention itself, consistent with Jennings v. Rodriguez and Ninth Circuit precedent. The immediate-release order with a short compliance deadline underscores the court's willingness to enforce statutory limits on post-removal-period detention.