Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joel Lamadriz Merchan, a Cuban citizen, arrived at a port of entry on March 17, 2019, and requested asylum. He was paroled into the United States on May 7, 2019, and became a lawful permanent resident on May 12, 2021, under the Cuban Adjustment Act. The record reflects later convictions for traffic, drug, and property crimes. ICE placed a detainer on him at a local jail on April 6, 2025, and took him into custody on July 28, 2025. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Cuba on March 18, 2026. He waived appeal, the order became final, and he has been detained since under 8 U.S.C. § 1231.
Merchan filed a habeas petition in the Southern District of Florida, where he was then detained, on March 17, 2026. That court denied it on May 6, 2026, because he was still within the six-month period that Zadvydas v. Davis treats as presumptively reasonable. On September 17, 2026, deportation officers interviewed him about whether he would remain in custody or be released. He filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 28, 2026, alleging that Cuba does not cooperate with removals and that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Respondent did not address that claim. Instead, respondent argued that the petition should be denied as successive because the claim could have been raised in the earlier case, and attached more than a hundred pages of exhibits, including criminal history records. Merchan also moved for appointed counsel.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson denied the motion for appointed counsel, finding that the interests of justice did not require appointment at this time. That ruling is an order. The rest of the document is a set of findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge. The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition, beginning with the successive-petition argument. Because the six-month presumptive period ran out on September 18, 2026, a claim that detention had become unreasonable and removal was not foreseeable only ripened in mid-September and could not have been raised in the March 2026 petition. Raising it now, the court found, is not an abuse of the writ.
On the merits, the findings apply Zadvydas v. Davis: after six months, once a detainee gives good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. The magistrate judge found no rebuttal. Merchan alleged, and respondent did not contest, that he cooperated fully with ICE, and he stated in reply that Cuba will not accept him or issue a travel document. The government had not removed him within the 90-day statutory period or in the seven months since the order became final. The September 17 interview, held to decide whether he could be released, strongly suggested no plan to remove him in the foreseeable future. Respondent's exhibits cited no evidence that removal is significantly likely. The court also cited decisions finding detention unlawful under Zadvydas.
Respondent's reliance on Merchan's criminal history did not change the analysis. Citing Tuan Thai v. Ashcroft, the court noted that dangerousness cannot justify indefinite detention under Zadvydas. The recommended relief is: grant the petition; order immediate release subject to any previously imposed conditions of release; enjoin re-detention unless the government obtains a travel document for removal, if necessary, and follows the procedures in 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i) and other applicable rules; and direct the clerk to enter judgment and close the case. Objections are due within three days of service, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district judge's order.
Key Takeaways
- A second habeas petition raising a Zadvydas claim after the six-month period expires is not successive merely because an earlier petition was denied as premature.
- After six months, the government must answer a detainee's good-reason showing with evidence of likely removal; here respondent's exhibits offered none.
- Criminal history and alleged dangerousness do not supply a basis for continued detention under Zadvydas.
- This is a recommendation; the proposed release and re-detention limits take effect only if the district judge adopts them.
Why It Matters
The findings add to a growing set of Eastern District of California decisions addressing detention of Cuban nationals the government cannot remove. As an unreported magistrate judge recommendation, it has no precedential weight, and its result rests on a largely uncontested record rather than a finding that removal to Cuba is impossible. What remains open is whether the district judge adopts it.