Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Gustavo Cabrera Miranda, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. He raised four claims: that his continued detention violates due process and Zadvydas because there is no significant likelihood he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future; that the government's third-country policy violates due process, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Convention Against Torture, and implementing regulations; that the third-country policy violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments; and that his re-detention violates the Fifth Amendment, 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Respondents filed a response on October 13, 2026, arguing among other things that under Zadvydas v. Davis detention remains presumptively reasonable for six months and may continue beyond that window unless the noncitizen shows no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, a showing the government contended cannot be met when the noncitizen's own non-cooperation is the obstacle. The response did not address the petitioner's claims that the revocation of his release violated applicable regulations. On October 14, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean signed an order for supplemental briefing, which was filed on October 15, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that the six-month presumptively reasonable detention period and the burden-shifting framework from Zadvydas do not apply to challenges to ICE's authority to re-detain a noncitizen after a final order of removal, detention, and subsequent release on an order of supervision, citing Yan-Ling X. v. Lyons. Instead, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l) govern and outline the required process, including notice and a prompt informal interview, and when ICE revokes release to effectuate removal it bears the burden to show a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed.
The court quoted 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), which permits return to custody of an alien who violates conditions of release and allows continued detention for an additional six months to effect removal, and which requires that upon revocation the alien be notified of the reasons and receive a prompt informal interview with an opportunity to submit evidence. The court found that supplemental briefing on the applicability of § 241.13(i)(1), whether ICE complied with applicable regulations when revoking the petitioner's order of supervision, and whether respondents can show a significant likelihood of removal would assist the court.
The court accordingly ordered respondents to file a supplemental brief and any supporting documentation within fourteen days of service of the order, and permitted the petitioner to file a traverse within fourteen days of service of the supplemental brief. The order does not resolve the merits of the petition.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that the Zadvydas six-month presumptive reasonableness framework does not govern challenges to ICE's re-detention of a noncitizen who was released on an order of supervision after a final removal order.
- Instead, 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l) supply the governing process, including notice of the reasons for revocation and a prompt informal interview.
- When ICE revokes release to effectuate removal, the government bears the burden to show a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed.
- Because the government's response did not address the regulatory-compliance claims, the court ordered supplemental briefing rather than ruling on the petition.
- Respondents must file a supplemental brief and supporting documents within fourteen days of service of the order, and the pro se petitioner may file a traverse within fourteen days of service of the supplemental brief.
Why It Matters
The order underscores a distinction courts in the Eastern District of California have drawn between initial post-removal-order detention governed by Zadvydas and re-detention after revocation of an order of supervision, which is governed by ICE's own regulations. For immigration detainees challenging re-detention, the decision signals that the government must come forward with evidence of regulatory compliance and a significant likelihood of removal rather than relying on the Zadvydas presumption.
Because the order is a screening step rather than a merits ruling, its practical effect is to force the government to address the revocation-procedure claims it omitted from its response before the court decides the habeas petition.