Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sandy Isaac, a native and citizen of Cuba, was granted parole in 2016 and adjusted to lawful permanent resident status in 2017. He accumulated multiple criminal convictions between 2017 and 2019, and was arrested approximately two dozen times by July 2023. On July 11, 2023, ICE issued a notice to appear charging him as removable due to his criminal history. An immigration judge ordered his removal on August 8, 2023, which became final on September 7, 2023. ICE released Isaac on an order of supervision (OSUP) on September 19, 2023, because removal to Cuba was not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. After his release, Isaac sustained additional arrests and convictions for larceny, burglary, trespassing, and petty theft. On February 22, 2026, ICE revoked his OSUP citing his criminal convictions and asserting a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, stating it was seeking a travel document for his expeditious removal to Cuba or a third country. Isaac has remained in continuous immigration detention since the revocation, now exceeding eight months.
Isaac filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 24, 2026, while detained at the Central Valley Annex facility. He was subsequently transferred to the Golden State Annex. The magistrate judge considered whether Isaac's continued detention is authorized under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), which permits revocation of release for violation of supervision terms or changed circumstances indicating a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government argued that Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), allows continued detention beyond six months where the noncitizen is dangerous or unlikely to cooperate with removal.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the habeas petition and ordering Isaac's immediate release on the preexisting terms of supervision. The court finds that although Isaac's release was permissibly revoked due to his violation of supervision conditions, his continued detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) is authorized only for an additional six months to effect removal. Because Isaac has been detained for over eight months since the February 22, 2026 revocation, his detention exceeds this regulatory maximum. The court further finds that the government has failed to demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2). The government offered no travel documents or information on the status of its request for travel documents more than eight months after asserting changed circumstances. The court rejects the government's reliance on Zadvydas, distinguishing it because Isaac was released after his initial post-removal detention period and re-detained long after the statutory period expired. The government also provided no developed argument or evidence that Isaac is unlikely to cooperate with removal.
The recommendation includes: (1) granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus; (2) ordering respondents to release Isaac immediately on the preexisting terms of supervision; (3) permanently enjoining respondents from re-detaining Isaac unless he violates conditions of release or respondents obtain a travel document and follow all applicable regulatory procedures; (4) directing the Clerk to serve the Golden State Annex Detention Center; and (5) directing the Clerk to close the case. The findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with a seven-day objection period.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen's continued detention after revocation of an order of supervision for violation of conditions is limited to six months under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1); detention beyond that period is unauthorized absent a separate showing of likely removal.
- When the government revokes release based on changed circumstances indicating a significant likelihood of removal, it bears the burden of proving that removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future; mere assertions without travel documents or status updates are insufficient.
- Zadvydas v. Davis does not control where a noncitizen was released after initial post-removal detention and re-detained long after the statutory removal period expired; the regulatory six-month limit under § 241.13(i)(1) applies instead.
- The government's conclusory assertion that a detainee is unlikely to cooperate with removal, without developed argument or evidence, cannot justify continued detention beyond the regulatory maximum.
- Courts in the Eastern District of California consistently require the government to produce concrete evidence of removal likelihood, such as travel documents or progress on their acquisition, to sustain post-revocation detention.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the regulatory limit on post-revocation detention in the Eastern District of California, joining a line of cases holding that 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) authorizes only six months of continued detention after revocation for supervision violations. It clarifies that Zadvydas's presumptive reasonableness framework does not displace the specific regulatory scheme governing revocation of post-removal-order release. The ruling requires the government to substantiate claims of likely removal with tangible evidence, not mere assertions, protecting against indefinite detention of nationals of countries like Cuba that do not readily accept returnees. The immediate-release remedy with injunctive protection against re-detention absent new violations or travel documents provides a robust enforcement mechanism.