Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Frisly Elder Lopez Cabrera, a citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while in immigration custody. Border Patrol agents encountered and detained him in the United States in July 2014, and he was removed to Guatemala; he re-entered the country in 2015. In July 2016, after an arrest for public intoxication, he was taken into ICE custody, served with a reinstatement deportation order, and later released on an order of supervision.
Nearly a decade later, an arrest warrant issued on August 4, 2026, and ICE detained Lopez Cabrera the next day during a scheduled check-in. The warrant was intended to facilitate a reasonable fear interview and move his immigration case toward final disposition. A DHS agent determined he did not have a credible fear of returning to Guatemala, and an immigration judge, after taking testimony, concurred that he had not established a reasonable possibility of persecution on a protected ground or torture there. His reinstated removal order became final, and the government reported that ICE had scheduled and confirmed a flight itinerary for his removal.
Lopez Cabrera initially brought two claims but abandoned his contention that he was arrested without a warrant. His sole remaining claim was that the government failed to provide sufficient process when it revoked his release on supervision; he did not challenge his expedited removal or the reinstated final order of removal. The question before the court was therefore narrow: whether the government followed the procedures required to return a person on supervised release to custody when changed circumstances make removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the government complied with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). The regulation permits revocation of release and return to custody when changed circumstances create a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. It requires notice of the reasons for revocation, a prompt initial informal interview at which the noncitizen may respond and submit evidence, and a custody review evaluating contested facts and deciding whether they warrant revocation and continued denial of release.
Applying those requirements, the court found that Lopez Cabrera received a Notice of Revocation of Release on August 5, 2026, stating that circumstances had changed and that DHS would enforce the July 25, 2019 order reinstating his removal order. ICE conducted an informal interview the same day. Lopez Cabrera offered information about his family situation but, the court found, no testimony or evidence showing no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The court also stated that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the evidence Lopez Cabrera presented at the informal interview. It concluded that the government afforded due process to contest the revocation and denied the petition. The order did not revive the abandoned warrantless-arrest claim or address challenges to expedited removal or the reinstated removal order.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied the § 2241 habeas petition, limiting its decision to the process used to revoke Lopez Cabrera's supervised release.
- The governing regulation required notice of the reasons for revocation, a prompt informal interview with an opportunity to respond and submit evidence, and evaluation of contested facts.
- The August 5 notice identified changed circumstances and enforcement of the reinstated removal order, and ICE held the informal interview the same day.
- His family information did not show, in the court's assessment, that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- The decision did not adjudicate the abandoned warrantless-arrest claim or challenges to expedited removal and the reinstated final removal order.
Why It Matters
The order applies the procedural safeguards of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) to a detention following years on supervised release, treating same-day notice and an informal interview as sufficient on these facts. The ruling rests on the documented notice and interview rather than any broader holding that every same-day revocation satisfies due process.
The decision also marks the limits of the habeas dispute. Lopez Cabrera had narrowed his case to revocation procedures and expressly declined to challenge the underlying removal orders, and the court's statement that it could not weigh the interview evidence further confined its review. The due-process conclusion resolved the only remaining claim against him.