Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Barbara Kunde Minuzzi, a Brazilian noncitizen held at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 22, 2026, seeking release on procedural due process, Administrative Procedure Act, and statutory grounds. She consented that day to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The court set an expedited answer deadline of October 30, but respondents filed no answer or other communication after counsel appeared, so the court deemed the petition unopposed.
According to the petition, Minuzzi had lived in the United States for approximately ten years, had a four-year-old U.S.-citizen son, was approximately three months pregnant, and had no criminal arrest, charge, or conviction. DHS issued a Notice to Appear in August 2025, years after she left the address to which it was reportedly mailed, and she alleged she never received that notice or a hearing notice. An immigration judge ordered removal in absentia on April 6, 2026; the order became final on May 6 after no appeal. ICE arrested her at Los Angeles International Airport on October 20, which she said was her first notice of the removal order.
On October 21, counsel filed an emergency motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order with the Los Angeles Immigration Court for lack of notice, invoking the statutory stay and requesting expedited treatment. The next day, an ICE officer allegedly said Minuzzi would be deported without her son. After counsel notified the U.S. Attorney's Office of the action, motion, and stay, an assistant U.S. attorney responded that she was not being removed because of the stay. She nevertheless remained detained, with no individualized custody determination or custody review alleged.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Anna Y. Park granted the petition and ordered immediate release under the conditions in place before the current detention. The court emphasized the party-presentation principle: courts decide the issues framed by the parties rather than developing arguments for them. Respondents had indicated they did not intend to contest the petition, and their failure to answer left the record without evidence or argument supporting a significant government interest in continued detention.
The court first explained that removal would be unlawful while the statutory stay remained effective. It relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), which stays removal pending the immigration judge's disposition of the motion to reopen, and on Nken v. Holder's explanation that a stay temporarily suspends the source of authority to act. It also cited the Ninth Circuit's Arce v. United States for the proposition that the government lacks authority to execute a removal order during a stay. Because Minuzzi's notice-based reopening motion remained pending before the Immigration Judge, the court concluded that she could not be removed.
The court then applied Zadvydas v. Davis's reasonable-relation principle. Post-order detention serves to secure a noncitizen's presence for removal and protect the community, but detention is unauthorized when its goal is no longer practically attainable. Since removal could not lawfully occur until the Immigration Judge decided the motion, detention for that purpose bore no reasonable relation to its objective. The court added that the government has no legitimate interest in detaining people who cannot be removed.
Key Takeaways
- A pending qualifying motion to reopen an in absentia removal order triggers a statutory stay that suspends the government's authority to execute removal.
- The court held that detention intended to effectuate removal lacked a reasonable relation to that purpose while removal was legally barred by the stay.
- Respondents' decision not to answer left no record evidence or argument establishing a significant government interest in Minuzzi's continued detention.
- The order required immediate release, restoration of prior release conditions, return of seized personal belongings and official documents, and a Notice of Release within three days confirming return of the belongings.
- Respondents were enjoined from re-detaining Minuzzi absent strict compliance with due process and all applicable statutes and regulations.
Why It Matters
The decision connects the statutory stay governing reopening of an in absentia order to the lawfulness of continued immigration detention. Rather than treating the stay as protection against removal alone, the court used it to conclude that detention for the purpose of removal no longer served an attainable objective.
The ruling also shows the practical effect of an unopposed habeas petition under the court's expedited procedures. The government did not supply an alternative detention justification, and the court decided the case on the parties' presented arguments. Its relief extended beyond release to document return, compliance reporting, prior release conditions, and limits on re-detention. The order did not itself rescind the removal order or decide the pending reopening motion.