Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michel Fernandez Fuentes, a native and citizen of Cuba, arrived in the United States on January 26, 2016 as a lawful permanent resident. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison in Florida on February 2, 2024, and on May 5, 2025, six days before his scheduled release, ICE detained him and placed him in immigration custody, first at the Glades County Detention Center in Florida and then at the Adelanto Detention Center in California. Bond was denied at a November 12, 2025 hearing on dangerousness grounds. He was ordered removed to Cuba on February 6, 2026, but was not removed; an attempt to remove him to Mexico failed, and Mexico conditions acceptance of deportees on the deportee's consent, which Petitioner declined.
On September 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. The clerk's briefing schedule ordered Respondents to answer by October 8, 2026, but Respondents never appeared or answered. The Federal Public Defender entered an appearance and filed a traverse on October 9, 2026, and the parties consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge for all purposes. Petitioner claimed his detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and Zadvydas v. Davis because removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that third-country removal efforts violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition and ordered Petitioner's immediate release. It found that Petitioner's post-removal-order detention exceeded the presumptively reasonable six-month period under Zadvydas: the ninety-day removal period expired May 7, 2026, and he had been detained subject to a final removal order for over eight months. The court concluded Petitioner showed good reason to believe removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future — the government had not obtained travel documents to Cuba, Cuba has a demonstrated unwillingness to accept nationals, and ICE's attempt to deport him to Mexico failed. Because Respondents presented no opposition, they conceded removal was not reasonably foreseeable, and continued detention under § 1231(a)(6) was no longer authorized.
The court also issued a limited permanent injunction, enjoining Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner absent a material change in circumstances and full compliance with 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l)(1), 241.13(i)(1), and due process, and from removing him to any country other than Cuba without prior written notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond in reopened removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Finding the eBay Inc. v. MercExchange factors satisfied, it ordered Respondents to release Petitioner, return confiscated items, and file a notice of compliance within twenty-four hours. The court deferred any attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act to an application filed within 30 days of final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Detention beyond six months after a final removal order is presumptively unreasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis, and the government must show removal remains reasonably foreseeable to justify continued custody.
- When the government fails to oppose a habeas petition challenging prolonged immigration detention, it may be deemed to concede that removal is not reasonably foreseeable, entitling the detainee to release.
- Cuba's demonstrated unwillingness to accept its nationals and Mexico's requirement of deportee consent can establish good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- A court may permanently enjoin re-detention without changed circumstances and due process compliance, and may require written notice and reopened removal proceedings before any third-country removal attempt.
- The government must comply with the INA and Due Process Clause when attempting third-country removals, including providing a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims before an immigration judge.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the constitutional and statutory limits on prolonged immigration detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, particularly for Cuban nationals whose removal is stymied by diplomatic realities, and underscores that the government's failure to engage in habeas proceedings can produce concessions leading to release.
The ruling also adds to a growing body of case law imposing procedural safeguards on third-country removals, requiring written notice and reopened proceedings before an immigration judge so noncitizens can assert fear-based claims; the limited permanent injunction serves as a model for targeted prospective relief in immigration habeas cases.