Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Luis Moreno, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. Respondents filed a response on October 7, 2026, stating that Moreno was ordered removed to Cuba in 2020, released on an Order of Supervision in 2021 because removal was not then likely, and re-detained by DHS on or about July 15, 2026, following a drug-related arrest. Respondents relied on Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), arguing that Moreno had only been detained for two and a half months and that the burden to show no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future would not shift to him until after six months of custody. In Ground Four of the petition, Moreno asserted violations of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 regarding the procedures for revoking his release. Respondents’ response did not address this claim.
The court addressed the dispute on the record described in the opinion. Allegations are presented as allegations, and the procedural posture controls what the ruling establishes. The result therefore turns on the motion and evidence actually before the court, not on a final resolution of every claim in the underlying litigation overall.
The Court’s Holding
The Court determined that the burden-shifting framework from Zadvydas does not apply to this case because it concerns ICE’s authority to re-detain a noncitizen after release on an order of supervision, rather than initial post-removal-order detention. Citing Yan-Ling X. v. Lyons, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2025), and Huang v. Albarran, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (E.D. Cal. 2026), the Court held that the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l) govern, requiring notice of the reasons for revocation, an informal interview promptly after return to custody, and placing the burden on ICE to show a significant likelihood of removal when revoking release to effectuate removal. Because Respondents failed to address Ground Four of the petition alleging violations of these regulations, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the government complied with 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l) in re-detaining Petitioner and whether this case is distinguishable from prior cases in which the Court granted relief.
The court ordered supplemental briefing; it did not grant habeas relief or decide that ICE violated the regulations. Respondents had 14 days to brief compliance, and Moreno could file a traverse within 14 days after that brief.
Key Takeaways
- The Zadvydas burden-shifting framework does not apply to re-detention cases where a noncitizen was previously released on an order of supervision; instead, the regulatory framework of 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l) controls.
- Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), ICE bears the burden to show a significant likelihood of removal when revoking a noncitizen’s release to effectuate removal.
- The government must provide notice of the reasons for revocation of release and an informal interview promptly after the noncitizen’s return to custody.
- Respondents’ failure to address the petitioner’s specific regulatory compliance claims (Ground Four) necessitated court-ordered supplemental briefing.
- The Court signaled skepticism regarding the likelihood of removal to Cuba in the reasonably foreseeable future, citing Riveros Cadavid v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2026 WL 1105032 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026).
Why It Matters
This order clarifies the applicable legal standard for habeas petitions challenging the re-detention of noncitizens previously released on orders of supervision in the Eastern District of California. It reinforces that the regulatory procedures at 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l)—including the government’s burden to prove a significant likelihood of removal—supplant the Zadvydas framework in this specific context. The order compels the government to justify its compliance with these specific regulatory mandates, setting the stage for a merits determination on whether Moreno’s re-detention was lawful. The ruling aligns with a developing line of district court authority (Yan-Ling X., Huang, Riveros Cadavid) imposing stricter procedural and evidentiary burdens on ICE in re-detention scenarios involving countries where removal is practically difficult.
The order matters because it identifies the governing re-detention framework while leaving compliance and ultimate relief unresolved.