Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angela Del Carmen Ruiz, a citizen and national of El Salvador, unlawfully entered the United States on October 4, 2023 and was arrested by border patrol officers. She received a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge on April 22, 2024, and was thereafter released on her own recognizance. On September 24, 2024, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and she later obtained employment authorization based on the pending asylum application.
Ruiz appeared for a regular Immigration and Customs Enforcement appointment on January 31, 2026, where she was re-detained and then transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center, where she remained in custody when the court ruled. On May 7, 2026, an immigration judge denied her applications for asylum and statutory withholding of removal, granted withholding of removal under the CAT, and ordered her removed to El Salvador. Ruiz waived appeal, the government did not appeal, and the removal order became final on May 7, 2026.
Ruiz then filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:26-cv-04774-DMS-JLB. Respondents filed a Return to the Petition, and Ruiz did not file a Traverse. The court ruled on the petition by order dated October 6, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), the government ordinarily must remove a person within 90 days after a removal order and must detain the person during that removal period. After the removal period, detention may continue only as reasonably necessary to bring about removal, and under Zadvydas v. Davis six months is the point after which post-removal detention is no longer presumptively reasonable. The petitioner bears the initial burden to provide good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future; the government must then respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. If removal is not reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute, although release may and should be conditioned on appropriate forms of supervised release.
Applying that framework, the court noted that Ruiz had been detained for over eight months and for nearly five months after her removal order became final, triggering the Zadvydas burden-shifting scheme. Ruiz argued that the immigration judge’s CAT grant made removal to El Salvador significantly unlikely. Respondents did not dispute that she could not be removed to El Salvador and failed to provide any evidence that they were attempting to remove her to a third country.
The court therefore held that Ruiz met her initial burden and that Respondents failed to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. It declared her present detention unlawful and ordered her release. The order further directs the parties to file a Joint Status Report on or before October 13, 2026 confirming that she has been released, and directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A final removal order does not authorize indefinite detention when the government cannot show that removal is reasonably foreseeable.
- The CAT withholding ruling and the absence of evidence concerning third-country removal were central to the court’s conclusion that continued detention was unlawful.
- The government’s concession that Ruiz could not be removed to El Salvador left it without evidence to rebut her Zadvydas showing.
- The order grants the habeas petition, requires release, and directs a joint status report confirming compliance plus entry of judgment and case closure, rather than merely directing further immigration proceedings.
- The ruling leaves the immigration judge’s underlying asylum, statutory withholding, CAT, and removal rulings undisturbed while recognizing that release may be subject to appropriate supervision.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Zadvydas’s statutory and constitutional limits to a detainee whose CAT protection prevented removal to the designated country. It places practical importance on evidence of actual third-country removal efforts: once Ruiz made the required initial showing, the government’s lack of such evidence meant that continued detention was unauthorized.
The ruling resolves the habeas petition in Ruiz’s favor and directs entry of judgment and case closure. It does not disturb the immigration judge’s denial of asylum or statutory withholding, and it recognizes that release may be conditioned on appropriate forms of supervised release.