Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roberto Angarcia Hernandez, a native and citizen of Cuba, was ordered removed in 2001. When the Department of Homeland Security did not carry out that order, it released him on an Order of Supervision, known as an OSUP. One condition of release was that he not commit any crimes. The record cited by the court reflects that he was arrested several times and convicted of several offenses between 2006 and 2026. In July 2026, Miami Beach police arrested him for camping in a prohibited area.
ICE took him into custody after his release from county jail on or around September 16, 2026. That same day he was served with a Notice of Revocation of Release stating that his recent arrest violated a condition of his release. Respondents contended that he received an informal interview shortly afterward. Hernandez then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order, contending that his re-detention violated his due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Respondents opposed, arguing that the OSUP revocation was lawful under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1).
The Court’s Holding
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the petition and resolved the temporary restraining order motion as moot. The order's introduction describes the denial as without prejudice, and its conclusion directs the Clerk to close the case and enter judgment for Respondents. Read together, the order ends this proceeding but leaves Hernandez free to bring a renewed claim later.
On the merits, the court relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1). Under those provisions, a person released under an order of supervision who violates a release condition may be returned to custody and continued in detention for an additional six months to effect removal and the conditions of release. The court found that DHS determined on September 16, 2026 that Hernandez had violated the no-crimes condition because of his recent arrest, and revoked the OSUP on that basis. Because his detention had not surpassed six months, it remained authorized. The court cited Chansombath, which denied a petition where six months had not passed, and Tran, which explained that detention was no longer authorized once six months had passed.
The court also concluded that Respondents provided the procedural protections applicable to revoked supervision under § 241.13(i)(3), which include a prompt informal interview after return to custody. It held the detention lawful at least until six months expires. The order states that it does not prohibit a renewed claim if detention continues beyond the six months authorized by the regulation. It does not decide whether detention past that point would be lawful.
Key Takeaways
- Under the regulation the court applied, a person released on an order of supervision who violates a release condition may be returned to custody and detained for an additional six months to effect removal.
- Here, DHS treated a new arrest for camping in a prohibited area as a violation of the condition that Hernandez not commit any crimes, and the court found the resulting detention authorized because six months had not passed.
- The court found that the revocation procedures in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3), including a prompt informal interview, were provided, so the procedural challenge failed at this stage.
- The ruling is limited: it holds detention lawful at least until six months expires and does not decide whether detention beyond that point would be permitted.
- The order expressly leaves Hernandez free to bring a renewed claim if detention continues past the six-month period.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order, so it carries no binding precedential weight. It rests largely on the regulation's text and on other Eastern District of California orders that reach consistent results. Its practical value lies in showing how that court applies the six-month limit in § 241.13(i)(1): detention within that window following a documented condition violation was upheld, while the cited Tran decision shows the result changes once six months have passed.
What remains open is significant. The court did not decide whether any detention beyond six months would be lawful, did not address how the period is counted beyond finding that it had not been exceeded, and did not separately resolve the broader due process theory. Any future challenge would be a new claim on a different record.