Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Adrian Cruz-Torres, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States in 2009 when he was extradited from Costa Rica and paroled in for federal prosecution. He was convicted in the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and sentenced to 87 months. In January 2015 an immigration judge ordered him removed to Cuba. He did not appeal, and DHS released him on an order of supervision days later.
In 2026 he was arrested in Florida on a state felony charge. DHS detained him on May 30 after state custody ended, and on June 3 ICE revoked his supervision based on the arrest. That day he was also served with a Warning for Failure to Depart, a Notice of Removal to Mexico, and a Notice of Failure to Comply. He was later transferred to Central Valley Annex.
Proceeding without counsel, he filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in September 2026, and it was transferred to the Eastern District of California. The petition sought release to continue follow-up care after prostate cancer surgery. Respondent argued that a conditions claim cannot be raised in habeas. It also argued that his noncooperation with removal to Mexico extended the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C), and that removal was foreseeable because Mexico has accepted thousands of Cuban nationals in recent years. A deportation officer's declaration stated that ICE was diligently pursuing removal. The magistrate judge liberally construed the petition as also raising a claim under Zadvydas v. Davis.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the removal period under § 1231(a)(1)(C) was not extended. Because the removal order was to Cuba, the provision reaches only noncooperation with removal subject to an order of removal. It does not reach refusal to accept removal to Mexico, a country for which no order exists. The June 2026 warning form's demand that he comply with removal to any country willing to accept him exceeded the statute. The Ninth Circuit decisions Respondent relied on concerned noncooperation with removal to the designated country. The regulation cited addresses conduct before the removal period expires, and that period ended more than a decade ago. Detention therefore falls under § 1231(a)(6).
Because Cruz-Torres had been released on supervision and later re-detained, the judge concluded that the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework did not apply. Instead, the government must show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. It did not. The declaration did not describe ICE's efforts, no agreement with Mexico to accept him was produced, and general statistics about Cuban removals to Mexico did not show that Mexico would accept him specifically. The judge therefore found the detention unlawful.
The report recommends granting the petition and immediate release on the prior supervision conditions. It also recommends a notice of compliance within three days of any adopting order, a bar on re-detention without first complying with § 241.13 (which the report cites as an 8 U.S.C. provision), and entry of judgment for the petitioner. These are recommendations only. The district judge has not yet ruled, and objections were due within seven days. The judge did not reach the conditions claim. A footnote observes that the government did not show he was given a meaningful opportunity to seek withholding or Convention Against Torture protection as to Mexico.
Key Takeaways
- The report concludes that § 1231(a)(1)(C) does not let the government extend the removal period because a detainee refuses to agree to removal to a country not named in his removal order.
- After release on supervision and re-detention, the report places on the government the burden of showing a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- General figures on removals to a country do not substitute for evidence that the country will accept this particular person.
- The ruling is a non-final recommendation. Release depends on the district judge adopting it, and the conditions-of-confinement claim was not decided.
Why It Matters
The report adds to a line of Eastern District of California decisions rejecting detention as a way to obtain consent to third-country removal. It also applies the burden allocation that several courts have used when ordering release after a revoked supervision. It shows that conclusory declarations about diligent efforts will not carry the government's burden.
As a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, it is not binding precedent. It has persuasive value only, and only until the district judge adopts or rejects it.